User:Ryan Vesey/Adopt/Drla8th!

Hi Drla8th!, and welcome to your adoption center. I have substituted the first lesson across for you and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Ryan Vesey/Adopt, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. Feel free to read ahead - it might help. I also might create a few more "advanced optional lessons" for you. The tests might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Also we now have a talk area for us to use, away from the more public areas it's at User Talk:Ryan Vesey/Adopt/Drla8th!. I will post some questions for you there later. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see. Ryan Vesey Review me!  00:58, 17 December 2011 (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. Prior to the five pillars, the groundwork was set by the trifecta.
 * 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 notable... 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 have a question about the test: do I answer all questions one after another, or do 1 and wait for your reply, do 1 and wait, etc.? (I'd like to start the test.)-- Drla8th! (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer all of the questions on the test and then we will go over them.  Furthermore, make sure you don't just reply with yes or no.  Every answer needs to be explained so we can make sure you are looking at this the right way. Sorry about the delay, I was flying home  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  23:18, 6 May 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 is no 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, a friend is not a reliable source.

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 - No for both, that would be bringing my opinion in, which I should never do.

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, this is an irrelevant piece of information that is not notable.
 * Your answer is correct here, but there is a specific policy that this relates to. Do you know what policy states that you cannot use this information on Wikipedia?
 * That you must have gotten the content freely.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * A - For The Troubles, yes because it is generally verifiable. On ITV, probably no since they are rivals.
 * This one also has good answers, but I would like to go further into it. Would you have any concerns about using a BBC news source on The Troubles?  Do you believe there are situations where it would be a reliable source for ITV?
 * I don't have any concerns, and there could occasionally be situations where it would be reliable, such as if ITV had a new show on their (ITV's) channel and BBC news wanted to report it.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- In Facebook, you can make up anything you like about yourself, so no.

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, they only would show one side of the story.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.hopsandpips.com being used in a beer related article?
 * A - Maybe, when the site exists.

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, it is their history, not their opinion of themselves.
 * I wouldn't have much of a problem either, but it is still a primary source and Xerox could use its About Us page to highlight only the good aspects of their history. Basically, it is okay to use the About Us page, but the bulk of the section should be based on secondary sources.

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 don't need a source since I have to agree with what most experts (most scientific communities, in this case) think in articles.
 * This question is made to make you think more than anything else. There are actually two competing essays on the topic You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and You do need to cite that the sky is blue.  Personally, I think that in 99% of instances you don't need to cite it.  This is very dependent on the situation.

I notice that you have a few typos above. -- Drla8th! (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You did well here, I'd like to see your response to what I posted on question 3 and 4 and then we can move on to the next lesson. On a side note, what are the typos you are referring to?  I'd like to change them for future adoptees.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the beginning of the test: "there is not time limit", not should be no. Also, while this is technically not a typo, you might want to fix question 7. (When I go to that web site, it says it doesn't exist. -- Drla8th! (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it will take a while for me to find a similar website, and I fixed the typo. On question 3, I am looking more at the policy of original research.  Specifically, it would be called synthesis, you can't take information from two different sources and combine it yourself.  Your instances where BBC would be appropriate are correct.  In relation to The Troubles, it would be a reliable source; however, you should make sure you check it with other sources to make sure that the BBC isn't presenting only the British side of the story.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  22:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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 tildas ~ . The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
 * 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?
 * No, I'd like to try the test. -- Drla8th! (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, just to make sure, when I closed off the last lesson I still left some comments (I'll do that every time I close one). Make sure you still check over them.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  22:43, 8 May 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, I should assume good faith.
 * Perfect! Way to go!

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.
 * No, but I see that this won't be a strong spot for me on Wikipedia. -- Drla8th! (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll bring over the test, but if you don't feel completely comfortable with copyright, I would suggest that you ask questions before uploading any files. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  00:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A-Generally, it is supposed to have only free material (images, audio, etc.) except in certain cases where fair use is claimed, so yes.
 * Yep, and more specifically, everything that is written on Wikipedia is released under a free license as well

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- If it is made by you directly or is released freely by a license, not copied from others or claimed fair use.
 * Yep, there is one more common instance as well, someone can give you permission to upload an image to commons. The image would be released under a free license after they give you permission, so it could still fall under the category of the first part of your response.

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A-Yep, it was released to be free by the license, just like on question 2.
 * Not exactly on this one Non-free content states that "Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially."

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, since it was inspired by something else that was not free.
 * Correct, this is a violation of NFCC. There was actually a long discussion on this here in 2008

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- No, anybody can just take a picture of him at an event and upload it.
 * Correct

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Yes, since there is (probably) no other way of getting a picture of any prisoner on death row.
 * This is a tough one, first there is almost always a mug shot which should be available in the public domain. If there is not, or if an actual image of the person on death row is necessary, it is technically possible to write to the prisoner and ask for an image, or send a letter to the person who took the press image asking for permission as well.  You could ask 1000 people on Wikipedia and I doubt you would see consensus as to the answer to this question.

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 check with the editor that he did somehow release it (and shows evidence) or else I delete it (or possibly tell someone who knows more about this than me to investigate more deeply, and then delete it).
 * Copyrighted information requires a bit more haste, so if a page is completely copyrighted it should be tagged with Db-g12. It is alright to seek advice from another editor first if you are confused as to the copyright status though.

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A-Yes, if the text is not free, then the editor's work is deleted.
 * I'm not sure if I was completely clear here. I am specifically referring to what issues occur when you rather than using the move button to move a Wikipedia article you copy everything and paste it into a new article.
 * Not really, except that the previous page will still exist. Sorry for the late reply, and I accidentally CSD'd this page while playing around with Twinkle. (I removed it.
 * It can actually be a big problem. If that happens, all page history is lost and the original authors are not attributed.  Then an administrator must do a lot of work to fix it.

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:Rise of the Planet of the Apes Poster.jpg
 * Good

Response
You did very well on this, copyright is a difficult concept and I still need to seek advice from other editors here. I'd like to see your response to question 8 and then we can move to a new lesson. Ryan Vesey Review me!  01:34, 9 May 2012 (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 where 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?
Nope, I'm ready. -- Drla8th! (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A-First, an editor is bold and makes an edit. Someone disagreeing reverts it, and the discuss it on the talk page to see who is right.

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-Both lose! Both are blocked temporarily from editing Wikipedia for their "violent" (best word I could think of) behavior.
 * Correct (Although they probably won't be blocked because they didn't actually break 3RR.

3) What is vandalism?
 * A- Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia, NOT a new editor not knowing anything and making test edits everywhere, adding unverifiable info, etc.

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A-Editor assistance means you want someone to give suggestions about the argument (not really saying who is right), third opinion tells who is right (supposedly), and RFC is similar to third opinion but generally has a lot of discussion with a large number of editors giving their opinions.
 * Your answers are generally okay here. Editor assistance is more to deal with one individual editor rather than the two of them.  In addition, these aren't necessarily about figuring out "right" versus "wrong".  It's a bit more complex, but the best statement I can come up with is it is a method of determining consensus.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  00:35, 23 May 2012 (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"
 * Nope, let's start.

Deletion
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A You can use PROD when there is already an article about a subject, but someone creates a page about it. AfD could be used if the PROD tag was removed but you still think it needs to be deleted.

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 If there is an article about (for example) a person that is not well known in many places such as an average young child.
 * This pushes it a little bit. The person might not be well known in many cases, but may still have a claim of significance.

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

3)First
 * A Mark it with A7, A1, and G11.
 * Those are all correct, A7 is the most correct so you could leave it at that

4)Second
 * A First mark it as a stub and see if people can improve it, otherwise mark with A7.
 * Marking it as a stub would be correct; however, marking it as A7 would be an invalid use of the tag. The article makes many claims of significance.  You could consider taking it to AFD which was the final outcome Articles for deletion/Zack de Vries

5)Third
 * A Mark it with G1 and G2.
 * Both are correct.

6)Fourth
 * A Same as question 4.
 * You are correct to mark it as a stub, but A7 is borderline so you shouldn't use it. Incidentally, the article now exists here

7)Fifth
 * A Same as question 1.
 * I assume you mean question 3? It may be eligible for DB-hoax as none of the information can be confirmed.  A1 may be correct because his last name isn't given, A7 may be correct because claims of significance are completely unsubstantiated, and G11 may be correct because it reads as an advertisement.

I would like to comment that "voting" on Wikipedia, such as on RfA's, is called "not-voting" or "!voting" to show that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. So you should change your sentence about not voting to not not-voting.
 * In this specific instance, I am referring to the fact that it isn't a vote. People tend to refer to their comments as !votes or not-votes because the keep or delete marker makes it easy to see what they are going to say. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  20:22, 7 June 2012 (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?