User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/TheOriginalSoni

=TheOriginalSoni= Hi TheOriginalSoni, 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  (gossip)  @ 19:45, 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 shall try the test. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, it's below.  Rcsprinter  (Gimme a message)  @ 18:59, 12 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 - Yes. It is relevant information that is important to the article. But of course, you will be needed to verify your source and back up your claim with relevant material before adding it to the article. But generally speaking, cars are not available in just one colour, so I would say that your friend's information is not true.
 * Right. Although this is fairly obvious, some people actually do just take what some sources say literally without questioning whether it's dubious - as you say, cars are generally not available in only one colour.

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 - On the racism article, defenitely not. It would not be correct to give unjust publicity to the newspaper's actions. On the newspaper's article, Yes; conditional to the fact that you do not use your own judgement, implying that you get other sources which point out the same thing. On both the cases, if a respected personality or some source points it out as racist, it might be acceptable to add it.
 * Good reasoning, it is better to consider where to add information and keep on the right side of NPOV.

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- No. Correlation is not causation. I remember seeing on facebook a similar photograph (wild bunny population and ongoing military conflicts in the world). They complemented very well. Implying that bunny reduces wars??! I don't think so.
 * This is a bit of a silly suggestion, I know. 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 - As long as we are talking about ITV News, I dont see why either of them could be a problem. Regarding reliablity of the source, I would consider BBC to be more reliable than ITV and would reread what I am inserting before I do so for the latter.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- Yes. I wouldn't expect them to be relaible when it comes to the controversy section, but for all other places, I dont see why that could be a problem.
 * Not exactly. This would be biased towards them and be a COI, but controversy is worse.

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- No. The official would be exercising his own personal judgement when he would be commenting on the stance. While it would be considered more important than the average editor's statement, it would still not be reliable. What would be is the actual page about the stance on hunger.
 * Yes yes.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://adnams.co.uk being used in a beer related article?
 * A - Yes. It will be like advertising the non-notable website on an article.
 * As a source, it was meant. But you get the idea.

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. Self sourcing [Not sure if thats the correct term] is allowed on Wikipedia, and the Xerox corp.'s own website shall be a reliable source of history on the corporation.
 * Well, there is some different opinions about that. In fact, usually we don't generally allow sources too close to the subject as they may be "bigging up the subject", ie exaggerating, leaving out bad details, to make themselves look good. When that information gets transferred to wikipedia, we break NPOV by not putting in the bad bits, all because we used a source to close. There is also a maintenance tag, Primary.

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 - I saw this wiki page, so makes this answer from me useless. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue - I do agree to this article (Though I found about this only now)
 * Exactly.

Well, you performed well on this test. A couple of answers were a bit off, but you don't need to do it again. The next lesson is below!  Rcsprinter  (deliver)  @ 17:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Question: Can you point out where my answers were off, so I can understand the community opinion, and put forth my opions, if they differ?

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?
 * Nopes.TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Woah, sorry for forgetting! Your test is below:  Rcsprinter  (post)  @ 17:49, 21 November 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- Rod's mate

2) Position B?
 * A- Rod

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- No. An editor who knows wikipedia may just be someone who read thoroughly about Wikipedia and its policies etc, or just some old editor starting afresh (which I remember is allowed). At the most, you may want to keep an eye out to see what he shall do. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and also because we must assume good faith!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question there above: After the Five Pillars test TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't notice. Please try to post questions in a place where it says "Questions?" or inside the box in which the Five Pillars lesson is contained. In answer to it, I tried to make that clear in my analysis of each answer. If I haven't put a "yes" kind of thing, I may have given you some feedback. Did you read those? It doesn't really matter, but you tried. As for this latest test on Wikiquette, the first two answers are definitely correct, as is the third with a reasoned explanation. Clever new people are not always others who have come back.  Rcsprinter  (orate)  @ 16:12, 24 November 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. Nopes. I understood. (P.S. dumbing down or simplifying the policies makes minimal difference to me, as I am well versed to read the official policy than what it implies. So you need not expend a lot of energies on it if you are.)
 * Also I still prefer if you clearly indicate what the actual policy stands on wherever I was incorrect in the first test. I am basically here to get hands on with ALL the policies, so I dont learn from mistakes all the time. So its much more helpful to me if I have an extended discussion on the grey area topics, than to just know where I am correct. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- Content that is uploaded on Wikipedia is most certainly free. But is Wikipedia itself free? I would be slightly divided on the question, though I believe the answer to that is yes.
 * Yes.

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- Whenever the image is under the CC license.
 * Yes.

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- Yes.
 * Yes.

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- No. Because the album covers which form the basis for the user's picture are themselves not free. So it shall not be a unique composition.
 * Right.

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- To the commons? No. To wikipedia? Yes, but a free image shall be much more preferred over the mentioned image.
 * OK.

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Same as the above question; though I think this image shall fail under the category of sticking out and not being useful to the article.
 * Do you think so?

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- I dont think there is any rule regarding basing articles on text released in the public domain. But the article shall still be deleted on the basis of being a direct copy of an external web page. (Cant remember the exact rule)
 * If there is anything so much as a sentence (excluding quotations) copied from somewhere else, it must be deleted. If there is an entire article like that, it should be deleted right away and the page creator given a good telling off. So pretty much, yes.

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- Issues as in? If it is about going from one article to another, then its prudent to merge the histories too. Otherwise I don't see how there could be any issues.
 * Good, good.

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-File:Myloxyloto.jpg
 * That is indeed fair use.


 * 9/10. You did very well throughout the copyright test and demonstrate a good understanding of the rules here. The only reason it's not entirely full marks is on Q7 where you couldn't remember exactly the rule, but I think I explained it there. More on my talk page. Next lesson below.

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?
 * I dont think so. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, test is below.  Rcsprinter  (gas)  No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 19:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution test
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A- Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and make changes that could be major, without taking in consensus. But if that edit is later reverted by other editors, indicating some opposition to the original change; then editors are to discuss the issue to figure out where the community consensus lies on the issue; and proceed as necessary TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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- There is no winner in an edit war. All edits must be made with the intent of improving the encyclopedia. In an edit war, that becomes secondary, leaving behind three losers- The two (or more) editors warring, and the encyclopedia itself. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

3) What is vandalism?
 * A- pasted from CVU exam Any act of adversely modifying Wikipedia articles (or anything else in general, especially public works of art) with the deliberate intention of harm will be considered as Vandalism. To be considered as vandalism, it must necessary be made in bad faith. Any bad faith edits which ends up improving the article, interestingly, is not considered as vandalism. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A- 3rd opinion is when the primary dispute/edit war is between 2 editors only, and they need a third person to weigh i on it to mediate and solve the issue. RFC is on topics and issues that need wider community consensus, and also on disputes involving more members and affecting a larger audience. EAR is only to help and assist editors to understand and learn whateever they do not figure out. It is more or less like a help desk for more experienced editors. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your answers are fine. Good definition of vandalism, and understanding of 3RR.  Rcsprinter  (natter)  @ 21:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal break
Before we move onto the next lesson, I'd like to find out more about who I'm coaching. This informal hiatus allows discussion between us extending personal wikirelations and better collaboration for in the future. Here are some questions just to get going:

1) Why do you edit Wikipedia? Why are you drawn to it?
 * A- Editing Wikipedia is mainly about making a difference to the passing on of knowledge to this world to me. I feel happy to be a part of this effort; especially when I see how big an impact I can make to so many people. I do not need any special qualifications (technically I do) to make a change to an article like Earth, which is read by thousands everyday.
 * The other part of it is the Wikipedia community. I like the way there is such an environment created by the people and for the people; in the true sense of the words. Its fun to try and understand such a highly structured environment.
 * The last part of it is because of my ambitions. I love taking up jobs of responsiblity. So being in a trusted position on this community is something I very much like, which is why I was absolutely glad to be a reviewer and a rollbacker. Shhh... Dont tell anyone but I also want to be an admin ;) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, right. Spreading the knowledge is always something people talk about. The way you can say "I wrote that" makes one proud. Also, the community aspect is a great help when you're editing. Always somebody to talk to! As for ambitions, if you keep editing and helping others, I have no doubt you may become administrator in a year or two.

2) What's the inspiration behind your username?
 * A- Thats actually my real surname - Soni; which happens to be used more than my name in my case. As for the words "The Original", they came from a signature of sorts I was designing for myself a few years ago (when I was about 15 or so). I loved the sig and the name; and so it stuck. Thats what I try to keep my virtual world alias to be everywhere now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking it may be related to Dr Who or Star Wars or something with aliens in, but that is a very unique story.

3) What's your main interest to edit about?
 * A- My primary interests lie in Science and India. But being a quizzer as well as a Wikifanatic (I find myself spending hours reading it); my range of interests go quite far. I have been to several places on the wiki(including dabfixing, vandal-fighting, article creating and expanding, new editor feedback and guidance, AfC, clean-ups etc), and have tried to contribute in numerous ways. In particular, creating a healthy environment for new editors (for whom I have got a soft corner due to my own experiences earlier) is one of the things I would like to be associated with the most. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I expect you're from India, if you have that interest and name:). It's good you work in a variety of places around, and particularly your thing about helping new users - that's always a plus. I would recommend the welcoming committee and WikiProject Editor Retention if you haven't already joined.

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"?
 * Lets try the test. (Please note I am on a Wikibreak/retirement hibernating mode and may not answer the test in a few weeks even). Btw how many lessons and tests are left? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A Do I have to describe or to give examples? PROD is when its fairly uncontroversial, and is usually not reserved for notablity. AfD is when it may be contested, and needs more editors to comment.
 * Yeah, you get that gist.

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 When the article says nothing about why the subject is notable to be included.
 * I suppose so.

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

3)First
 * A CSD G3
 * I think tagging with A7 would be better.

4)Second
 * A AfD under "Notablity not established"
 * An AfD or maybe a BLPPROD would be good.

5)Third
 * A CSD G1
 * Absolutely.

6)Fourth
 * A AfD under "Possible Hoax". Otherwise tag under "Need of Copyediting/Needs references"
 * That would be OK.

7)Fifth
 * A CSD G2
 * Really? I think that's not so much of a test page, more of an A7.  Rcsprinter  (yak)  @ 14:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus
Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight.

Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up.

There are a couple of exceptions to consensus. Anything decree from Wikimedia foundation or WP:Office actions must be adhered too. Although these are rare, it's worth keeping in mind. Some of the things passed down in the past is that care must be taken over biographies of living people and copyright violations.

Community
The community is anyone who writes and edits Wikipedia. This includes you, me and any user who clicks that little edit button. They need not be registered, which is why you see IP editors. Although some registered editors treat IPs like second-class citizens, there is no reason they should be. I've seen a few reports that show that the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by IP editors. It does mean that the vast majority of vandalism is also caused by IP editors, hence the disillusionment. I'll get onto vandalism in a separate lesson, so don't worry too much about that now.

Policy and guidelines
Everything we do in wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively constant at the policy level.

Ignore all rules
What? Is this really right? Well, what the ignore all rules policy says is "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." My personal interpretation is that this a catchall to remind us that we're not in a bureaucracy, that the important thing is the encyclopedia. I've never had to implement it personally, but I do keep it in mind.

Questions
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?
 * What does WP is not a bureaucracy mean? I have seen it being universally quoted but either I do not understand it, or nowhere have I seen it being actually in use. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A bureaucracy is something where there are clean, defined rules, set by people who are appointed rather than elected. On wikipedia, this relates to the rules simply reflecting current community consensus and can be changed at any time, by anyone, because wikipedia is editable to all. Obviously for policies and guidelines there needs to be a discussion to produce consensus for them to be changed, but the point is everyone sets them and the people with more power, like administrators, are elected fairly with a system like RfA. Does that help?  Rcsprinter  (chat)  @ 12:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. And is there something like WP is not a democracy? What does that mean, if it exists?
 * Plus, is my action at this article appropriate? Gloria Allred. I sense some disturbance in the force here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's the point, Wikipedia is a democracy. People go by a majority ruling on making decisions like in AfD. Also, very largest apologies for my late reply, I just hardly get time any more. Questions are below.  Rcsprinter  (state)  @ 17:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Policy
1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
 * A A policy is a rule, which ought to be followed, except under extenuating circumstances. A guideline is weaker than a policy, and something that should be followed, but does not need a very strong reason to be not. An essay is simply an opinion without consensus, which might be followed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bang on. They are the clear differences.

2) Can Policy change?
 * A Yes indeed. If overwhelming community consensus says that Civility ought not to be a pillar (which I hope never happens), I believe it can be removed from the five pillars and made into a guideline or removed entirely, possibly TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly acceptable answer.

3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?
 * A If you go by the policy, Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy. But if you ask for my opinion, I'll say yes. Firstly, We have Jimbo, who is the Supreme Commander of all Wikipedia, which may or may not be a bad thing. While I completely support the concept of a single authority to take the hard decisions when consensus fails, I do not completely respect Jimbo's qualification to do the same. Frankly, he is slightly on the immatureish side, and would fail a decent RfA, had he been an ordinary member.
 * The other thing is the large number of admins from the non-RfA era, who were just selected by Jimbo. Once again, having so many admins is not a bad thing, but I would much rather prefer to have them all go through one RfA or RfC (continuation) just to be sure they are capable of continuing as our sysops. If not, then Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, I think. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a detailed thought. I like your ideas; they might go somewhere one day.  Rcsprinter  (constabulary)  @ 17:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Templates
Templates allow you to post large sections of text or complicated sections of code while only typing a few characters. Templates work similar to regular links, but instead of double square brackets, you use. To call a template, just type the title of the template between the double braces. You don't need to include the "Template:" prefix; the MediaWiki software automatically searches within the Template namespace for what you're looking for. Only if the page you're looking for is in a different namespace do you need to specify it. See below: One template you can use to welcome new users, Template:W-basic, has several parameters which can customize its appearance. Most of those parameters are named, in that you have to specify to the template what the name of the parameter is when you use it. sets the parameter "anon" to "true", which generates a message directed towards anonymous users. The advantage to named parameters is that they can be placed in any order, but they must be spelled exactly right or they will not work. The template also uses an unnamed parameter, one which does not have to be specified when it is put into use. Templates automatically assign a numerical name to unnamed parameters when they are used, starting with "1". sets the unnamed parameter "1" to "message", which is what that parameter is used for in that template. The userbox above can specify the number of states visited with that same unnamed parameter. Unnamed parameters must be in sequential order to work properly, unless you force them to be out of order by using syntax such as. Using "1=, 2=" is also required if the parameter has a = anywhere within (occasionally the case with some external links).

When writing templates, there are some extra tags and codes that have special effects when a template is called.

Conditional templates allow for use of more intricate templates, with optional parameters or different effects depending on what a certain parameter is set to. They use parser functions such as #if: to apply certain conditions to the code. Use of these functions can allow you to create some rather advanced templates, but often get exceedingly complicated and should only be edited by those users who fully understand how they work. Since these are rather complex, they will not be covered in your exam, but if you'd like we can cover them after we've completed the other topics.

I forgot to mention - there are two ways to call a template. Transclusion is simply calling the template as I showed you above:. This displays the template where you put the call for it, but leaves the curly braced call in place so that it's easy to remove. This also causes the template to update every time the page is loaded, if it has been edited or has a time-sensitive variable. Substitution, or "subst'ing" a template, causes the opposite effect. To substitute a template, add the code "subst:" at the beginning of the call:. When this is done, you are seeing the curly-braced call for the last time, because when you save the page, the MediaWiki software will replace that call with the template's code. This causes the template to lock in place - however it was when you called it, is how it's going to be from then on. This makes things a little difficult to remove, though, as instead of the simple template call, you've probably got lines of code that are now clogging up your article. Depending on how the template it written, it may require subst'ing to work properly, or it may require that it is not subst'ed. The page at WP:SUBST gives details on what templates should, must, or must not be substituted. When writing templates, it can also be useful to enclose the subst: code within tags. See below.

This lesson should show you how templates can be really useful for a lot of things. However, we can make templates even more functional and more powerful by having them do different things depending on what the parameters we set are.


 * I got half of the lesson. From the point "When writing templates" onwards, I did not. Maybe you could just create template(s) displaying what you did, and then call them on this page to show as a demo, it might be better. [I understand things well by studying codes, and seeing what effect they have on the actual writing]
 * P.S. Most of the things that has been taught in the various Adopt lessons so far are stuff I already know (by reading through before). But I have actually come here to understand those stuff I do not know. So it might be good if you could actually level up the lessons to include complicated stuff, so I understand everything that's there. Which is why I will prefer a harder test including if-else parsers so that I get hands on with the tough stuff too. Also, if there are any further advanced material you can prepare on the previous lessons - The things I may not know - Please do mention that to me (Another "Advanced stuff" section maybe?) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, you know how when you want to change something inside a template, for example ? The bit after the pipe (|) is called a parameter, and when you are writing the template at the Template:Smiley page, that's where you'd put the  to switch it to whatever face, which would create . If I created a page called Template:Bugs with the content "My favourite bug is .", then when I use it on another page as  I would get "My favourite bug is the butterfly." This could then be changed to anything else at all, for instance  when called might produce "My favourite bug is adoption." That's the simpler part.
 * After this, you can also add parser functions to change images or set words, which basically makes the software think "If I put the parameter X, display phrase C. If I put the parameter Y, display picture B". This is more complicated and there are quite a few different parsers which can be used, like switching and can be helped with the use of magic words. For a better guide on this, a full list of them and how to format them properly, see the mediawiki documentation page. Is there anything else you need help on, or can I give you the test?
 * As regarding to your advanced stuff idea, the course is actually meant for editors just a couple of days old so I don't think it is very practical to do something more advanced. If you would like private tutoring on anything specific, you can but ask.  Rcsprinter  (speak)  @ 12:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Test please!
 * In which case, this test would become quite redundant for me, right? The one reason I took up adoption is to learn everything here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Templates Test
Well, this is a bit of fun, isn't it? One of the more difficult things to test.

Well, for this test, I've created you a nice new page at User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/TheOriginalSoni/Template. It's a template! Have a look at it now. Depending on how you call it, different things will happen. So I'd like you to call the template so that you get the correct result. No using subst, just use the parameters of your nice new template.

1) I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
 * A:

2) My name is TheOriginalSoni and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
 * A:

3) My name is TheOriginalSoni and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module)
 * A:

4) My name is TheOriginalSoni and I intend to pass this module! I am really good with templates. (Template module)
 * A:

'NB, to get (4) to work properly... you will have to edit the template.'

-under progress- Will get back when its not quarter to 5 am. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. I had to scrummage through unclarified documentation of if parsers and stuff to figure it out and rectify the error in your template if statements. But finally did it! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Question - Whats safesubst? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I say, you've done remarkably Soni. Safesubst is essentially the same as regular substing, but it protects it from breaking in some way that WP:SAFESUBST can explain much better than I can. Are you ready for the next module? There's not too far to go, I promise.  Rcsprinter  (state the obvious)  @ 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And I still do not understand how I did not wreck my examinations today. To the next lesson now! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.

To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).

What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.

The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks: So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
 * (diff) (hist) . . Shigeru Miyamoto‎; 14:32 . . (+28) . . 201.152.102.192 (Talk) (→ Competition with Sony and Microsoft )
 * 1) A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
 * 2) The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
 * 3) The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
 * 4) The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
 * 5) The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
 * 6) The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
 * 7) The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.

Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)

IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here ( ~ ) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:

Now that that's over with, go do your task. Have fun! (By the way, please ignore new pages, indicated by a bold "N" on the log entry.)
 * Diff 1: [] Why you think this is vandalism:
 * Diff 2: [] Why you think this is vandalism:
 * Diff 3: [] Why you think this is vandalism:

How to Revert
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE

Vandalism and warnings
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.

Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.

When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a uw-npa warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a uw-npa4im warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.

The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text " has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.

Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.

Questions
Not much of a test this time, because there's so much to read... but let me know when you are ready :)
 * Actually since I've already been through CVUA, I suspect this lesson may not be necessary. I would prefer not to give a test and be judged on my CVUA test, but if you want a test, please post the test and the next lesson together. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that is fine. You're at the end now.  Rcsprinter  (shout)  @ 17:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My reply is inside the closing box.  Rcsprinter  (shout)  @ 17:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Working the encyclopedia
Final module, well done for getting this far. I don't know if you realise, but the other 8 modules dealt with the theory of wikipedia, and didn't actually ask you to do anything. Well, this module is designed to teach you about the different areas you can work. It's a big wide encyclopedia out there.

Building
The first option is to build new articles. You know an awful lot about how wikipedia works now, and what's notable and what's not, reliable sources and what not. How about you try and write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know. Did you know is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook") and the hook should appear on the front page in the Did you know section! You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.

Join a Project
Have a look at your favourite articles, on the talk page, you'll often find that they have an associated WikiProject. The project is always looking for new members and will enjoy your help! They often have to-do lists and you could help out :D

Deleting
Why not mozy over to WP:XfD. There's always debates going on about articles that might need deleting from the encyclopedia. Throw in a view! You've been reading so much theory, you'll know as much as most people. There's an article on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which might help you.

Patrolling
There's a lot to maintain at wikipedia, and your help would be gratefully received.
 * New Page Patrol checks every single new page to see if it meets the guidelines, wikifies it, tags it and marks it as patrolled. Would be very helpful if you'd help out :D Have a read an think which you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your WP:CSD knowledge, or at least nominate them for deletion.
 * Recent change patrol, vandalism patrol. it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! I've done quite a bit, but it still only accounts for 20% of my work here.

Cleanup

 * WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do.

Help the encyclopedia move forward
There's always discussions going on at requested moves or WP:Requests for comment. Why not see if you can offer a point of view? The most important (supposedly) at any given time are listed at WP:CENT. Hey, you can even wander around the village pump (the encyclopedic version of the water cooler), see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.

Questions
Think there's stuff their you can do? Are you ready for the final exam? I have to warn you, some of these will be involved in the practical test... oh yes, there's a practical test. ;)
 * Ready. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, you can now go to User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/Final exam and follow the instructions there. I'll be back after a week to mark your answers.  Rcsprinter  (message)  @ 14:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)