User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/Landscapnik

=Landscapnik= Hi Landscapnik, welcome to your adoption page. I'll post lessons below and you ask any questions you like about it, and then we move on to the informal test and the next lessons after it. The first one is below. You can give messages like you would normally do on a talk page here, but don't forget to sign.  Rcsprinter  (chatter)  @ 19:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Five Pillars
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for. Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.
 * Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
 * Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
 * Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
 * Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
 * Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.

How articles should be written
The articles in Wikipedia are designed to represent the sum of human knowledge. Each article should be written from a neutral point of view – personal opinions such as right and wrong should never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.

To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.

Reliable sources
So what is a source? Wikipedia uses the word source for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic – so whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent.

A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception – so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable by default. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.

Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue!

There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here.

Questions?
Any questions or would you like to try the test?
 * I think I could try the test now
 * Saludos
 * Landscapnik (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, the test is below. Write your answer for each question where it says A.  Rcsprinter  (natter)  @ 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Five Pillars
This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There's not time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?


 * A - No, I wouldn't because: a) items of information like colors of a particular model or gadgets incorporated in it, may be considered 'promotional'.See: 2.3.1.- "Advocacy, propaganda, or

recruitment of any kind: commercial…"
 * b) what one learns "from a friend" does not constitute 'a reliable source' (not 'verifiable') and
 * c) 2.10 "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (I regard the colors of a particular make of cars as indiscriminate information)
 * You get the idea.

2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
 * A -i) Not in the racism article, which is of a general nature and doesn't deal on incidental issues.
 * ii) From 2.9. 3: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
 * iii) The above notwithstanding, some clearly racist cartoons, such as recent ones dealing with Islam, have produced such an stir in the Muslim public (leading to riots and confrontations) that perhaps they should be published for the public at large to judge.
 * Right, so you wouldn't add it in to the article. Another good thing you could have said is we need to remember WP:NPOV, and we can't call something racist and be neutral, can we?

3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?
 * A-A correlation between the incidence of baldness in USA males and the consumption of butternut squashes would constitute "original research" and as such should not be included in Wikipedia.
 * Alright! Completely correct! Nobody would think they would have anything to do with each other unless there was proper scientific research providing a reliable source, otherwise nice as it would be, the entire thing is ridiculous.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * A-This is a tricky one! On one side TV news tend to be somewhat superficial and strongly biased but, should they be ruled out while accepting, say, The Guardian or The NY Times coverage of the same issue?
 * If the TV news related to The Troubles are documented through video clips of the items, the clips may count as documents and, as such, 'verifiable' sources.

The events of The Troubles are relatively recent and historians might not have time to have a decent bite to conflicting narratives. I assume that a lot of relevant archive materials has not been made public yet and, in the meantime, the media coverage of the events may be an important source. To sum up: I don't have a Yes or No answer on this one. Landscapnik (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it in one. Media coverage is good but sometimes biased.

Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A-I'm not familiar with the commitments, if any, that are entailed for 'official' Facebook pages, but I'd say that such a site is as reliable as a printed brochure from Ben and Jerry's Company. I see in the References List that a number of printed brochures from said Company are included. Since no one has objected to including them as reliable sources, on the face of it, I see no objections to including the Facebook page. However, web pages can be altered while printed pages can't, so, the person that intends to include the said Facebook page, should keep a copy of it archived somewhere.
 * Haven't you noticed it would be promotional and biased, and a COI, and a primary source, and unreliable because it's Facebook? :)

6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
 * A-a "forum official" is an anonymous entity and hence not a reliable source in the sense given in the Pillars
 * Alright.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.harveys.org.uk/ being used in a beer related article? :A -Yes, I would have a problem if "the beer related article" is of a general nature; there are plenty enough sources about beer which are not commercial ones. But no, I wouldn't, if "the beer related article" dealt, say, with the History of Breweries in Sussex.
 * You know your way around this one.

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
 * A -No, not really. I had a look at the References for the Wiki Xerox page and I see that quite a number of company's leaflets are already quoted as sources; one more won't change things.

As an aside Note, applicable to this answer and some of my other answers, I'd say that whenever books or journal papers are available to the contributors of a particular topic, commercial leaflets should not be used as sources. If those are note available and said leaflets are the only sources their use could be allowed.
 * Hmm, half. It's a primary source, so perhaps not the best.

9) Q - Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?
 * A - Yes, a reliable source is always needed. The pertinent quote to your question might be from Wiki: neutral point of view "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
 * There is a loophole though; if the editor claiming that the sky is bronze happens to be "a recognized authority in the field" his opinion may be admitted without a source. The loophole however begs the question of why such claim hasn't got past the referees of some peer reviewed Journal?
 * I get you, but basically the answer is no, the thing is a ludicrous suggestion. Have you ever seen WP:BLUE?

Well, that was a good test. The next lesson is below.

Wikiquette
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.

I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
 * Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
 * Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~ . The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
 * Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, : . I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.


 * Don't forget to assume good faith
 * There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
 * Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
 * Watch out for common mistakes.
 * Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
 * Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.

Questions
Any questions? I have quite a number of questions but not related to etiquette. Shall I post them hereor elsewhere?

I think I am ready to take the test on your second chapter. Landscapnik (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You may as well ask them here, that's what mentorship's about.  Rcsprinter  (babble)  @ 23:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some questions:
 * 1) I want to intercalate some paragraphs into a Wikipedia article on Landscape. My paragraphs include references; shall I give them numbers following the refs. numbers already in the article? or, do I have to give new numbers to all references already in the text?
 * 2) Can I introduce, at the top of an existing page, a template box with the caption "this article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page." or do I have to ask permission from someone.
 * 3) As said, I want to modify an existing page.Before doing that I'd like to contact the author of the original page. She/he does not appear on the Talk page. Is there any way I can trace who wrote the article? Landscapnik (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry I took a few days to answer, but I really don't get time during the week. Now, when you say you want to put some paragraphs into the article, is that from an external source, the paragraphs copied off another website? If so, you are not allowed to do that, but you can reference it to back up statements in the article already. If I'm reading that wrong, and all you want to do is add references, you don't need to mess about putting numbers in at all. If you just insert the references in the right places using, the software will automatically put the numbers in brackets in, with a link that takes you down to the reflist at the bottom of the page. If you want more about this, just ask me.
 * This is a wiki, and you have to ask permission from absolutely no-one. Edit anything however you like it. To put in the tag you said, use multiple issues. Will that be all?  Rcsprinter  (articulate)  @ 17:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answers; you didn't answer though my first question above, regarding how can I trace the author of a page (I mean the original version of the page. I'll be posting some more questions soon.Landscapnik (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Test
Have a look at the conversation below: Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

1) Position A?
 * A- It appears he's replying to Freddie but he might also be answering Rod's question. IMO Passat Lover could save us guessing if he had taken the trouble of starting his sentence with the name of the talker he's addressing to. Isn't that etiquette?
 * Well, you sort of got this entirely wrong. Passat Lover in Position A is replying to Rod's mate, as Passat Lover gives three colons and the next on above with two colons is Rod's mate.

2) Position B?
 * A- Not answering to Jane for sure. Again replying to Rod or Freddie.
 * Here they're replying to Rod, for the same reason, so wrong again, I'm afraid.

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- I'd say that "being awfully competent with templates" does not make him suspicious of being a WP:SOCK. The term( as described in the WP:SOCK article seems to refer to activities not allowed within WP regulations, being good at templates is not one of them (even if having a low edit count)
 * Good, you get this part.

Is this all the test or did I miss the continuation? Landscapnik (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all, it's only a short test this time. I've marked it and your next lesson is available upon request.  Rcsprinter  (Gimme a message)  No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 20:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rcsprinter: Ready for my next lesson... and a Happy New Year to you with together with my thanks for your tutorials.Landscapnik (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.

Glossary
There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.

Image Copyright on Wikipedia
Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.

Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution.

So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia.
 * 1) Free images
 * 2) Non-free images

Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere.

Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of Wikipedia's strict conditions in order to use them. (Non free content criteria)

In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations
 * If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
 * If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
 * If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)
 * There must be no free equivalent
 * We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
 * Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
 * Must have been published elsewhere first
 * Meets our general standards for content
 * Meets our specific standards for that area
 * Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
 * Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
 * Can only be used in article space
 * The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag

It's a lot, isn't it! Well, let's have a look at the non free stuff. I'm going to suggest two different images. One, a tabloid picture of celebrity actress Nicole Kidman, and the other, the cover of the album Jollification by the Lightning Seeds. The tabloid picture of Nicole Kidman will instantly fail #1, because there can be a free equivalent - anyone can take a picture of Nicole. The album cover on the other hand is unique - there's no free equivalent. It's discussed in the article too, so showing it will be useful in context (#8). The copy we show should be shrunk, so that it can't be used to create pirate copies (#2). I couldn't put it on my userpage though (or even here) (#9)

Get it? Well here are a few more examples.
 * I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
 * Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
 * For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.

Commons
When people refer to Commons on wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias.

Copyright and text
So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see how it applies to text. All the principles are the same - you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right there So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not. Got it? Good.

Questions
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.

RcsPrinter: I am still studying the last material on Copyright. Besides I am having a lot of troubles with references for an existing page I want to modify. I have placed a HELP ME notice in my User Page. If you have some time could you visit it and give me a hand?Landscapnik (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * RcsPrinter: The subject for which I placed a HELP ME notice was answered satisfactorily but now I have a new problem with References in the Landscape page : I have a new list of Refs. with the previous and my new ones but the list displays at the end a block of Refs which are redundant. I cannot manage to delete them because when I go to Editing Mode said block doesn't appear. Besides, instead of the References of the previous version I get a long list of items in various languages which I'm not sure if it's safe to delete. Your help will be very much appreciated.Landscapnik (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * RcsPrinter: I think I am ready to take the test on Copyright. As for questions regarding this Chapter, I have quite a few of them but I hope that through actual work with Commons and others I'll get a clearer picture. Landscapnik (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * RcsPrinter: I've just finished answering the test on COPYRIGHT.(Included below) I must apologize for taking so long in answering but January was an extremely busy month for me. Thanks for your patience!Landscapnik (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- As you well say: "but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution." In this sense it may be said it *is* free. However, there are a number of limitations to the 'free' …which is something in common to all freedoms, isn't it?
 * Good reasoning.

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- One can upload a) all images that fall under the category of Free Pictures b) paintings, photos, diagrams, etc. which are created entirely (as opposed to adapted) by myself d) Images under "public domain" (for which the copyright has expired e)a non Free one that " has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license".
 * Yep, that's fine.

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- Yes we can but with the proviso that in the license there is no clause forbidding distribution and sharing.
 * Correct.

Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.
 * A- It might be "his own unique composition" but contradicts the above clause: " if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work," I wouldn't say that juxtaposing images may qualify as a work "coming entirely from my own head"
 * So to put a finer point on it, you can't upload that because it incorporates previously published work.

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- Not in general, Only in case that the magazine or newspaper has explicitly waived all rights to that picture.
 * That part is correct, although also you can upload it to wikipedia but NOT Commons. A free one is preferred.

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- My answer is the same that the one for Q5.
 * And right.

Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. What do you do? You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA
 * A- Not quite sure what I'll do. Perhaps putting a warning note prominent in the article calling attention to the problem and, if after a reasonable time, the author's article does not clarify, simply delete it.
 * That would suffice, but ideally it should be removed straight away as a precaution as it is a copyright violation. If it turns out not to be an issue, for instance it is in the public domain, it can be put back. Either tag the page with copyvio or db-g12. (without the tl)

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- Sorry! I don't quite understand that question. To me the issue is whether or not I can quote a text or part of it. Whether I quote by "cut and paste" or visual copying seems irrelevant.
 * We'll skip that one then.

Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using File:IMAGENAME. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
 * A- I failed this one! I went around clicking images and didn't find a single one being used under "fair use".

Landscapnik (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? I can find tens of thousands at Category:Fair use images. If you ever need to look for something, a category is usually the way to go.

You did fine there with a basic knowledge of copyright. It does get a lot harder/complex, and i know about that, but if you want any details in the future just ask. I shall post the next lesson tomorrow. Great work!  Rcsprinter  (yak)  @ 20:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious. I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.

Simple Resolution
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.

Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.

Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Rerverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that.

If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.

Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia dispute resolution process
If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution

Assistance
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.

Third opinion
You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP

Mediation
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). The editors at each specialise in sorting debates.

Request for Comment
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified.

Arbitration
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.

Reports
If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help.

Remember: you could be wrong!
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.

Any questions?
Questions about any of the above?

No, not at the moment. I think I am ready to take the test. This, assuming you haven't lost your patience with me for taking so long in replying. My sincere apologies for the delayLandscapnik (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You take your time, it's fine. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt (message)  @ 20:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution test
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A- Bold, or rather being bold may be taken up better through its (here) relevant synonyms: daring, confident, forthright, self-assured and its antonym: 'timid'.

Suppose I want to add to a page some aspects which I deem important for a comprehensive understanding of the subject covered by the page. But the question creeps up in my mind— If they are so important, how come they have been ignored by my fellow editors? In short, I am doubtful about writing or not. In such a case I should follow the recommendation to be bold, ,not to be timid, be confident and self-assured and publish anyway; after all the best procedure is to expose my views to the public at large so as to know what they might think about it. (nevertheless I should publish my proposed additions first in the Talk Page of that subject and if no one answers back, go ahead and publish.


 * Revert: following with the above example; Suppose another editor thinks my additions are too specialized for the common readers and important only for a few experts in the subject. That editor takes the action of reverting or undoing my changes. Assume he does that by simple deleting without stating the reasons why.

Naturally I'd feel annoyed but I'd try to keep calm and induce said editor to go to the last of the three: discussion.


 * Discussion: Since I'm unaware of her/his reasons for deleting mine, I'd invite the editor to state his reasons on the article's talk page and then if not convinced enough to concede the point, present my views. "Discussion is a primary method for editors with different ideas to work out solutions." During the discussion I'd do my best to not to stray from the norms of conduct written in the t0p three levels of the enclosed pyramid.
 * Hehe, good long answers! This demonstrates a clear understanding of BRD; your explanation is very good in each part of that answer.

2) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!
 * A-I guess the most common situation is that one of the editors gets fed up and simply gives up in which case the other wins the 'edit war'.

However, let's assume that one or both are not too stubborn and resort third opinion, requests for comment or mediation. If my opinion were to be asked as a third opinion, I'd do my best to "conciliate" by looking for a common ground. I'd expressly try to make clear to both that what is at issue is not who is right but what gives greater benefit to potential readers of that wikipage.
 * You're sort of getting at it... the idea is that edit wars aren't "won", but civilly discussed and a compromise decided.

3) What is vandalism?
 * A-A malicious alteration of Wikipedia content. Malicious alteration may presuppose on the part of the vandal, either a) an intent to discredit Wikipedia; b) an intent to discredit the subject (for instance, someone very much against birth-control might alter the page so as to make it appear absurd. c) an intent to show to the public at large how clever his jokes or puns are (self-exposure, psychopath).

Vandalism of this sort is not peculiar to Wikipedia. One finds plenty of vandals of this sort in public lectures concerned with contentious subjects.
 * Hitting the nail on the head.

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A-In asking for editor's assistance one asks for an experienced editor to give advice on ways to resolve the dispute but not necessarily to get involved in the discussion. In asking for third opinion one solicits the opinion of an editor which supposedly has know-how on the subject; as opposed to 'editor's assistance' the third chap gets involved in the discussion and may take sides with one or the other. In putting up a request for comment you are interested in getting as many as possible wikipedians to interact in the discussion. In the later case, unless there is a clear majority for one side the issue stays unresolved. (see my Note below.Landscapnik (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhuh.


 * Well, a fine test there; no problems. :) Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt (yak)  @ 22:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: The following case illustrates some aspects of Resolution Dispute:

As reported by Haharetz newspaper of March 15th, 2013, there was a lengthy discussion about whether or not call someone 'a human rights activist' in a Wikipedia page devoted to her. The 'someone' was MK Orit Strock  and the issue was discussed arduously with pros and cons in the Hebrew Edition of Wikipedia. What was controversial here was that said Orit Strock had been acting on behalf of the Israeli settlers with no concern at all for the human rights of the Palestinian population. Since many saw the settlers as the oppressors and the Palestinians as the oppressed, they claimed she could hardly be called 'a human rights activist'. According to the press report quote: "The editors of the Hebrew edition of Wikipedia have decided to describe the pre-legislative career of freshman Knesset member Orit Strock (Habyit Hayehudi) as "human rights activist" on her article page. The decision, followed extensive discussion on the article's talk page among the entry's editors. In the February 23 vote, 28 editors were for and 23 were against the decision." In my view this was a weird way of Dispute Resolution. 28 against 23 is not 'a clear majority'; the issue was clearly a political one; 'reliable sources' were hard to come by and the views for or against were necessarily determined by 'personal opinions'. Why not to include the two opposing views on her main Page? It seems to me that this dispute went against most of what you've taught me so far about Wikipedia norms of conduct. Any comments?Landscapnik (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on what people are doing on other wikipedias but I do believe that all of them should have equal moral values and guidelines for sorting out disputes and things such as that. This is a rather extreme example, but... Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt (yak)  @ 22:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Policies
While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion.

Wikipedia has three methods to delete pages. The first, and by far fastest, is the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. These criteria depict what content absolutely cannot be kept on Wikipedia for whatever reason and must be removed immediately. The most commonly used ones are as follows:
 * General criteria 1 (G1) or G2 - Patent Nonsense and/or Test pages. Commonly created by new accounts, these have no meaningful purpose at all. Mark these pages with the templates db-nonsense or db-test.
 * G3 - Vandalism. Obvious junk that you can understand (and so isn't nonsense) but obviously isn't intended to be the least bit helpful. This includes redirects that get made as a result of someone moving pages around disruptively. Mark these with db-vandalism
 * G4 - Recreation of deleted material. If a page is deleted through an XfD debate (see below) and it gets re-created essentially identically to the previous version, it can be speedied under G4. This does not apply to pages deleted under any other method (although another speedy criteria may fit and can be used), or pages that have been "userfyed" (see below). Tag these with db-repost
 * G10 - Attacks. If a page is created with the apparently singular purpose of attacking someone, it's a candidate for deletion. Mark these with db-attack.
 * G11 - Advertising. If a page is so blatantly advertising (for anything, even a person) that it really doesn't serve any other purpose at all, it can be deleted. db-ad
 * G12 - Copyright violations, or "copyvio"''. If a page meets ALL of these criteria, it should be deleted immediately for GFDL compliance. Tag these with
 * Direct copy of a non-GFDL-compatible website
 * No non-copyrighted content in history
 * All copyvio content added at once by one user
 * No assertion of permission or fair use, or that content is public domain or freely available.

Whenever you mark a page for speedy deletion, it's usually nice to notify the author. Each of the speedy deletion tags shows the proper warning to use - just copy that code and paste it on their user talk page. You are not required to do this, but it usually helps alleviate some confusion on the part of the author.
 * Article criteria 1 or 3 (A1 or A3) - Little to no context OR no content. For articles that provide no useful information about the subject, are completely empty, or consist only of links elsewhere. Note that an article can be as short as a single sentence but still qualify as a stub. Mark with db-empty.
 * A7 - Non-notable subject. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not establish why it is notable. If this is somewhat controversial, consider another deletion method. Mark with db-bio, db-corp, db-band, or db-web.

If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author,.

Finally, the XfD processes (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allow users to debate on the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what is to become of it. These are not votes - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are considered towards the result of the debate. The template at right shows all the different types of deletion debates. The most frequently used is AfD, Articles for Deletion. Your nomination earlier today should have gone there. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures.

Before anything is deleted, though, one should always check to see if there is any alternative. There are a wide range of cleanup templates that can be used to indicate an article needs attention (templates which we'll cover in more detail later, I'll just give you the link for now). One could always take care of the cleanup themselves. It's also possible there is usable content in the article that can be merged elsewhere, or it's just under the wrong title and needs to be moved. Wikipedia's purpose is to include as much information as possible, so deletion should always be a last resort.

Questions
Any questions or would you like to try the "Test"?
 * Rcsprinter:this Section appears to me particularly tough but anyway I'd like to try the "Test"

now. Best RegardsLandscapnik (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A:- 1) example for WP:PROD: Someone writes a biographical article about Mr. Alfred Toybean. This person was once elected a Member of Parliament; during his period as a MP displayed no other noticeable activity than showing up occasionally to vote Yes or No according to the instructions of his party's whip. Outside that and having been honest and kind and a good father, nothing else is noted in said article about him. Readers of Wikipedia may be spared any knowledge of his existence and hence, to suggest the article for 'uncontroversial deletion' would, I think, be justified.


 * 2) example for WP:AfD: While the PROD is still on, someone else writes that Mr. Toybean, served as an officer in the Army during WWI, received a number of commendations and medals and ended his Army career with the rank of General. The proposed deletion goes for discussion under AfD. There some might argue that the criteria of Wikipedia should be more demanding than the criteria used to include someone in the Army's "Who's Who" book, while others express the opposite view.
 * Say, you've made up a whole story. But, your understanding of the deletion processes is clear.

2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :)
 * A  Someone writes an article noting that an academic Conference on "Postmodernism and Alienation' was held at the University of Antofagasta on September 2008. The article lists the topics to be discussed as detailed in a 'Call for Papers' published online, but, not the papers presented nor the Abstracts were ever published. The author's article makes no claims about the significance or importance of the event. I'd say that in this case a db-event would be justified
 * Yup, that would be OK.

I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them?

3)First
 * A Danielle Spross is absolutely the most amazing woman alive. She is so damn pretty and has the most amazing boyfriend ever! I'd say it fall into A7, and I'd put an db-bio. I'd notify the author though and ask him to substantiate the claim of Miss Spross being "the most amazing woman alive" using reliable, independent,sources.
 * Precisely the right thing to do.

4)Second
 * A: Zack de Vries seems to have an outstanding career,which might justify being included in Wiki. However not publishable as it stands. I think that I'd put a note "This Page is an Stub; it does not contain any mention of reliable sources; plese complete or it will be deleted.
 * That's an option - he seems to be borderline notability but we do need to ask for references or it could all be made up.

5)Third
 * A "Aklhjkhln d halhlh acjklh lhkjal" I'd say Patent Nonsense. Fall under A1 and merits adb-nonsense
 * Didn't think you could get this wrong. You didn't!

6)Fourth
 * A I'd leave the account of the Plymouth tragedy as it is; however I'd reccomend the author to include a Page Title and consider merging it (or linking to) the main page on the London Blitz.
 * I would have notability concerns and tag it for big cleanup and referencing, but your idea of merging into the main blitz article certainly is feasible.

7)Fifth
 * A I'd say Jonny's story falls under G3,0bvious junk that you can understan but helpful for an Almanaque and not for Wikipedia. I'd mark it with db-vandalism.
 * That tag is 100% correct.


 * Saludos! Landscapnik (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you got one wrong! You are certainly learning everything in the lessons, and there's only three more to go. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt (talk to me)  @ 09:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)