User:Ryan Vesey/Adopt/Red Hat On Head

Hi Red Hat On Head, 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/Red Hat On Head. I will post some questions for you there later. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see. Ryan Vesey 18:34, 1 August 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. 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?
 * There, read all of it! :3 I think I can try the test now, although there's one question about the neutral thing - so being neutral means only giving weight to the majority opinion on a topic? Red Hat On Head (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the most part, yes. It all depends on how important a viewpoint is.  We have an article on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories even though they aren't the majority opinion because they are an important aspect of the assassination and receive widespread coverage.  That said, we wouldn't have an article that links George W. Bush choking on a pretzel to an assassination theory because it isn't a majority opinion and it isn't widely reported.  (In fact, I just made it up)  I apologize if this doesn't clear it up entirely for you, but feel free to ask me to clarify anything.  Okay, here's the test. Ryan Vesey 19:44, 1 August 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. This is an "open book" test and you are able (and encouraged) to search Wikipedia for relevant policies. I also want to see your thought process, so please give reasons with all of your answers. 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 - It depends. If several news agencies and online news websites are reporting it, and only if Ford has confirmed it, I can add that to the article, using the online news' links as references. If Ford hasn't confirmed it, it will still be considered a rumor and cannot be added to the article.
 * Very good. I've never seen someone respond to this question with a comment on searching for the information themselves.  That's very proactive of you!

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 - Not on the newspaper's article, but the racism article. However, if there is a controversy about it, and it is reported by other news agencies, I can create a new section on the article of the newspaper.
 * I'll start with the second half of the question. You are correct that if other news agencies are commenting on it a section could be created in the newspaper article; however, you might not be able to include this in the racism article.  You see this as clearly racist, but unless it is reported as racist elsewhere it would be original research

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- I can include the informaton that people in the state of Ohio and the ranking of the states on the article about the squash, and the interesting fact about baldness on the baldness article. I can then try to submit a DYK to the front page about it.
 * I want to clarify one thing and make sure we are both understanding eachother. I'm asking if you could include information that links butternut squash and baldness as a result of seeing the similarity between these graphs.
 * Actually, no. Unless there is no scientific study that has been published that links the two together, I can't add that.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * A - I would consider it a reliable source on the Troubles, but not on ITV. The Troubles was something historical, like World War 2, and BBC will not be able to lie about it since facts have been documented on it. ITV is a rival network to BBC, and they would have cause to lie about it. The best source is probably ITV itself.
 * As a note, have you ever heard the comment that "History is written by the victors"? In this case, the BBC is a reliable source; however, since it is a British/Irish issue, the BBC will have some bias.  It is good to use their sources, but you should be careful to maintain a neutral point of view by using other sources as well.  The BBC may sometimes be a reliable source for ITV, but you are correct to be wary.  In most situations, I'd be concerned about using BBC as a source for negative information on ITV.  Finally, ITV is an alright source on itself, but we try to avoid self published sources and focus on secondary sources instead.  Primary sources are useful for factual information, but not for opinion.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- No. It is something more promotional and lets followers know about small events and contests, but it is not a very reliable source. The website itself is a better source.
 * Good

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, it is self-published, and there is no proof of he/she being an official from the Daily Telegraph.
 * Good

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music related article?
 * A - No, I wouldn't. Amazon is a reliable source and so is iTunes - iTunes is updated by Apple.
 * Amazon and iTunes are acceptable sources and I wouldn't have a problem with using them; however, they also sell a product. In most cases, I would avoid using them if you can reasonably find the information elsewhere.

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, I wouldn't. In fact, the source is very good. However, I would also find some other websites' and back up what Xerox says in order to maintain a neutral point of view.
 * Very good answer.

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 - ...No. You can just use common sense. :P Maybe that editor is a troll or just wants to stir up trouble.
 * Per WP:MINREF it that something should be sourced if it
 * Is a direct quotation
 * Has been challenged
 * Might be challenged
 * Has been removed
 * In this case the information has been challenged so it may be necessary to use a source. That being said, we also have Common knowledge and two competeing essays You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and You do need to cite that the sky is blue.  In the end, something like this is incredibly easy to add a citation to and it may be better to add a citation than argue about why it doesn't need to be cited.  I'll expand this with a note, Ancient Greeks called the sky bronze, as they had no word for blue (Homer describes it as such, probably meaning dazzling bright).

You did very well on this overall. I'd just like to see a response to my clarification of question 3 and then we can move on to the next lesson. Good job! Ryan Vesey 14:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There, I clarified my answer on Question 3. :3 Red Hat On Head (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work! Ready for the next lesson? Ryan Vesey 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup! :D And sorry for the late reply! Red Hat On Head (talk) 18:59, 2 August 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 tildes ~ . 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?
 * Nope, no questions. Red Hat On Head (talk) 19:11, 2 August 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- Freddie.

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, unless there is other evidence that he has another account. He could be starting fresh again.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newbies_aren%27t_always_clueless Your 2nd and 3rd answers are correct; however, in position A he is one indent in from Rod's Mate and on the same indent level as Freddie, so he's responding to Rod's mate. In addition, you can link to Wikipedia pages just like a normal page by typing Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet Do you understand everything on talk page discussions or do you have some more questions before we move one? Ryan Vesey 19:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, kay! :3 Nope, no questions. Red Hat On Head (talk) 19:44, 2 August 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.
 * Yup! I have a few questions though. This poster here is apparently in the public domain - anything published before 1 January 1952 is in the public domain in India. Does that also apply to a movie released in 1951? (Because if that's the case, once my account is autoconfirmed, I'm going to go add a poster to Baazi (1951 film) and some screenshots!) And are pictures on Flickr free to use?
 * I'm going to leave a short comment now and then I'll get some clarification on Wikimedia Commons (I'm active on both projects) and get back to you in a few hours. My initial reaction is that File:Birha Ki Raat (1950) - Hindi film poster.jpg is not appropriate for Commons; however, it would be appropriate for fair use on en.wiki.  Commons requires that something is in the public domain in its source country and in the US and the general US law is that they must be before 1923.  That being said, the US might respect Indian law on this one.  As for Flickr, most of the pictures are not free to use.  In addition, there are some pictures on Flickr that say they are free to use but really aren't.  For the time being, if you see an image on Flickr, ask me about it and I can tell you.  In any case, here's the test. Ryan Vesey 21:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Sasha! I talked to some people on commons and the poster you linked to is going to be deleted there.  It's copyright was renewed in the United States.  Can you download it so that you can upload it here?  You should be able to upload it in about 2 days. Ryan Vesey 04:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ARGH.

-bangs head on wall- -bangs head on wall- -bangs head on wall-

If I had kept my big mouth shut, then the poster still would be up on Commons! Arghhh! Then whoever uploaded it will get angry with me and it wasn't just being used for the articles for Dev Anand and Nargis, but also the Urdu article for Dev! What am I going to do about that? And what license am I going to upload it under?

Arghhhhhhhhhh! Red Hat On Head (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Sasha! This isn't a huge deal.  You can do this or else I can.  All that needs to happen is the image should be downloaded and then uploaded on en.wiki instead of commons.  Then Film poster rationale should be placed on it.  I can help with that if you want to do the uploading.  I have contacted some people on urdu Wikipedia and asked if one of them who speaks English can help me find out the rules on urdu Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey 18:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...When am I gonna get autoconfirmed? This is taking forever! -sigh- Red Hat On Head (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like you should be autoconfirmed now. I asked why you aren't at Help desk.  On another note, I suggest that you start User:Red Hat On Head/Birha Ki Raat.  I can help you write it.  I'm worried that the poster might not meet the fair use requirements for Dev Anand but it would meet the requirements if you created Birha Ki Raat.  In addition, are you still searching for the answer to question 8?  I can tell you which page to look for the answer on. Ryan Vesey 18:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but, I haven't seen the movie, and I haven't a clue about the plot! Now most people just go, "Oh wow, Dev and Nargis acted together?" And yes, that's why I'm freaking out! The poster was a good addition thereeeeeeeeeeeeeeee- -freaks out- And and and oh my God and the article for Nargis? Gosh darn it. I just ruined two, three articles. Red Hat On Head (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll start off by assuring you that you didn't ruin any articles. I'm working on finding a way to include the image and I can create a stub for Birha Ki Raat.  In that way, you will have improved the Encyclopedia.  In either case, we can help expand both articles to talk about how the two acted together.  Finally, this is all related to the law and not to you.  In fact, had you not pointed this out, there's a good chance it would have been deleted without notice someday.  Now we have the chance to make sure it is uploaded locally.  Sadly, it won't be retained on Urdu Wikipedia since they don't allow fair use. Ryan Vesey 19:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's been sitting there for eight months and no one has said anything! Considering the huge number of editors watching that article! I made a couple of edits on it as an IP address and within an hour, most of them were reverted. I'm telling you, all the Indian editors sitting on that article... God. And NOOOOOOO. WHY NOT ON URDU-

-cries- Red Hat On Head (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Commons actually has a backlog of images that are all going to be deleted. There are currently over 5,000.  That means someone would have gotten to it no matter what.  It just depends on when they'll get to it.  In the case of Indian copyright law for movie posters, the poster would need to be created before 1936.  The law here is pretty ridiculous and I'm challenging it to see if we can focus on the fact that it appears like the US and India have a bilateral copyright treaty.  Urdu Wikipedia can only use images on commons, that is the case with most of the smaller wikis.  In addition, some countries don't have fair use laws.  I apologize, I had File:Allen Morris playing tennis at Wimbledon.jpeg, an image I uploaded, deleted and it wasn't all that fun. Ryan Vesey 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that is stupid. If it's not copyrighted in the public domain, why must the US stick its nose into India's business?! I swear to God. Argh, darn it. What should I do now? Take Urdu classes to get the picture back there? -siiiiiiigh- But yeah... I'm still looking for the answer to Q8. Red Hat On Head (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is where it gets ridiculous. The copyright of that poster now extends to 2046.  This is because it was copyrighted when the US passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.  Prior to that, the poster was copyrighted in India but not copyrighted in the United States.  The law was to make sure that if something was copyrighted in another country, the US didn't ignore the copyright.  It should have been set up to only copyright the images as long as they were still copyrighted in the other country.  I'm going to try to research the law more and see if I can find a loophole.  Normally, the image would have been PD here due to PD-US-no notice.  I'm trying to see if there is any indication that the poster wasn't published in the United States.  That might be a loophole that we can use. Ryan Vesey 20:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are two pages to find the information on copy paste moves. See Copying within Wikipedia and Copy-paste. Ryan Vesey 20:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WHAT?! I'LL BE A MIDDLE-AGED PERSON BY THEN! The poster definitely wasn't published in the US, so the US should just leave it alone. Let countries do what they want. Geez... I want to slap somebody. Hard. Very hard. I want to chop somebody's head off. Red Hat On Head (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- The text? The text is free, though not all images are free - some of them are being used under fair use.

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- When it is in the public domain - whether released by the owner or very old (150 years is a good benchmark).
 * You can always upload an image int he public domain. In addition, sometimes images are released under a license that isn't PD, but is still free use.  This would be a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA style license.

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- Yes, as long as it is attributed properly.
 * In this case you couldn't. Commons requires all of its information to be available for commercial use.

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. The Beatles albums covers are copyrighted, and you may not modify it and claim them as your own.
 * You are correct. This would violate NFCC which requires minimal usage.

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- No, since it can be replaced by a free image - you can attend a gathering that the Pope is speaking at and take a picture of him yourself.

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Yes. You cannot go and take a picture of the prisoner, so it cannot be replaced by free media and qualifies as free use.
 * I answered this question the same way but this is a disputed issue. Some people still say there is a possibility to get a picture of the prisoner.  In general, this is an image that is better to avoid unless you go to Media Copyright Questions and find out it is fair use prior to using it.

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- Go find the person who wrote the text, notify him, and in my case, I'll go find somebody to help, probably you, or maybe Worm, and somebody else at the Teahouse.
 * That's a good way to go about it. You could also place Db-copyvio on the page, but we'll cover this more in later lessons.

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A-

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:Tere Ghar Ke Samne.jpg One of my favorite films! I literally fell in love with the poster when I saw it almost a year ago. :3 (And if you're wondering, yes, I am a Dev Anand fan. Should've been obvious by now. :P)
 * Perfect

I'm really sorry for taking so long to correct this. Do you have any remaining questions or should we move on? Ryan Vesey 21:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * S'alright! I think I got it now, if I have any more questions I'll ask you. :D Also, the prisoner on death row thing, meh, I'm probably avoiding that 'cause, well, why concern myself with people that are gonna be executed when I have the wonderful world of films with me? :D Red Hat On Head (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good thinking! Ryan Vesey 05:03, 22 August 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, no questions. :) Red Hat On Head (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A- Be bold, and if somebody reverts your edit, instead of getting into a hissy fit and starting an edit war, just go to the talk page and discuss with the interested parties - who knows, it could spark off an interesting discussion!
 * Good, what do you think you should do if the other person doesn't take part in the discussion?
 * Contact them politely on their talk page, and if they still don't respond, ask somebody for help. 'Cause I don't want to start an edit war.
 * Excellent! Sometimes it is a newer editor who doesn't even know the talk page exists.  If you can't get a person to talk at all, seeking help is the right way to go.

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- Person B? I know there's some kind of trick here, but I can't quite figure it out.
 * Nobody wins an edit war and Wikipedia loses. Edit wars harm Wikipedia's credibility and make it difficult for other people to improve the page.
 * Oh, yeah. An edit war also means the article won't get promoted to GA for some time, right?
 * Correct, if there are recent edit wars in the article's history that haven't been resolved, Wikipedia doesn't want to call it a Good Article because it is liable to change drastically.

3) What is vandalism?
 * A- Making unconstructive edits, such as blanking pages and adding offensive language. (I was looking over the edit revisions of an article and some vandal had put in a really... really offensive paragraph of text, and I got so upset by it that I cried. That was last time though...)
 * Right, one important thing about vandalism is it should be intentional. Someone might add a paragraph of very useful information but accidentally delete everything else.  Their edit would be a mistake, not vandalism.  Can you tell me what article that was?  It might be possible to have that vandalism removed (so only administrators can see it).  Hopefully it was reverted quickly
 * Yeah. The article was for Dev Anand, although that was before December. Really wayyy back. I just cried. My friend tried to console me, but... sigh.

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A- Editor assistance is for someone to talk to, and third opinion is for someone to actually step in, and give a neutral, unbiased comment. Rfc is like 3O, but it's much more serious.


 * I have a question on the talk page, BTW. Red Hat On Head (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good answers, sorry for the late reply, I've got so many pages on my watchlist, sometimes some get caught up in the mess and I miss them. Ryan Vesey 12:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * S'alright! And thanks for the birthday wish! :D I'm going out to dinnerrrr~ Red Hat On Head (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have fun at dinner, I'll transclude the next lesson tonight, but don't feel like you have to look at it, it's your birthday. Ryan Vesey 20:26, 29 August 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"
 * One question. Are excessive plot summaries, well... considered for cleanup or stuff? 'Cos I do think I went a liiiittle overboard with the plot summary of Kashmir Ki Kali (It's long. :P), and I think the plot summary for Guide is too long. Red Hat On Head (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film since I don't really know the answer. I'm gone for the next 11 hours (at least) but here's the test:
 * Okay, a plot summary should be between 400 and 700 words. If it is not within that range, you can use Long plot, No plot, More plot, or All plot Ryan Vesey 14:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryan, I'm so sorry I haven't been on recently. I've been having family problems and it's hard to get online... Red Hat On Head (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. Wikipedia is an entirely volunteer project.  So you can take as many breaks as you want.  I'll be on very little for the next 9 months.  If I fail to respond in a day or so, leave me a note on my talk page. Ryan Vesey 17:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A Well, maybe for WP:PROD, I come across this not-so-notable article, and I'm pretty sure no one really is watching it, I would do that. If someone comes and removes the notice, and I still think it should be deleted, I'd go to WP:AfD.
 * Good

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 Maybe an article about someone's pet cat, or a neighbourhood band or something. I think it's only considered notable when an article has been published on it?
 * So, as I mentioned at the top of the program, I am running Worm That Turned's program. The funny thing is, part my answer to this question was "Well an easy one would be if I created an article for my cat. My cat is non-notable and does not deserve an article. Another good example would be if an article was created about a singer. This article could only include information about the fact that the person sings. If it stated that they are notable because they won a talent show then A7 cannot be used, even though they would probably be found to be non-notable in a PROD or AFD".  We both had very similar examples.  I would like to point out a mistake we both made, but it's purely semantic.  Note that A7 doesn't concern itself with notability.  There are many non-notable topics that don't qualify for A7 because A7 is about significance.  Saying a person had a song published might not make them notable, but it could be a claim of significance.  It's all situationally dependent though.  If you ever find an article and you're not sure where the threshhold between notability and significance is, let me know and I'll help you out.
 * Alright, that works! :D

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

3)First
 * A A7.
 * Good

4)Second
 * A XfD.
 * Very good, this article doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. It's possible that this person might be notable.  An alternative would the the BLP PROD since there are no sources.

5)Third
 * A WikipediaCSD.
 * Correct

6)Fourth
 * A G11.
 * Can you explain why you feel this article is promotional?
 * Because it says "an appeal was made to raise money"? I could also do PROD or XfD, or maybe just ask you. 'Cos if it stays, it needs serious improvement.
 * I see where that came from. Generally, to qualify for G11, there must be some sort of benefit for the subject of the article.  That can range from publicity to commercial benefits.  In this case, the comment that "an appeal was made to raise money" was of historic significance and not made to promote the subject.  It is difficult to figure out what the actual subject of the article is.  You could reasonably PROD it or take it to AFD due to it being difficult to figure out the subject of the article (my answer, by the way, was to PROD it), but there's a good chance that there would be backlash to that.  The best thing you can do is read the sources.  Once you look at this source, it is fairly evident that the subject is notable.  In the future, it might be possible to take the article to Articles for Improvement, but that system hasn't been approved yet.  A real version of the fake article can be seen at Plymouth Blitz.

7)Fifth
 * A A7. Oh, and wow, bhangra. I fell off my chair laughing.
 * Very good

You're answers to these are very good, you are far beyond where I was in CSD knowledge when I had been editing as long as you. Good work! Ryan Vesey 05:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ryan! You're a pretty good teacher too. ;3 And wow, my cat just sneezed. Red Hat On Head (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A sneezing cat? Sneezing cats are cute, we should probably write an article on it. (Just kidding)  Do you have any other questions or are you ready to move on to the next lesson? Ryan Vesey 15:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! Nope, no questions. ;3 (And now by Singapore time, it's 21st October and it's Shammi Kapoor's birthday! :D) My cat's more of a pig though. He snorted, not sneezed. xD Red Hat On Head (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pigcat? Ryan Vesey 16:59, 20 October 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?
 * Yeah, well. Once these bunch of Indian editors came so a consensus to not allow Hindi or Urdu transcripts on movie articles. (Quite a common practice) Don't know why. I didn't quite know, so I asked a guy to help me write down this movie's name in Hindi and Urdu and put it up on the article. Then another editor removes it, including the English translation. I asked why, and I sort of got ignored. So, what should I have done? (I just ended up leaving for a while) Oh, and that's on a seperate account. Red Hat On Head (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know which article this was? I'd like to actually see what happened.  Did he point you to an actual consensus?  If you disagree with that consensus, it might be necessary to start a new discussion because consensus can change.  If he didn't point you to anything and is unwilling to engage in discussion, make sure you've messaged him on his talk page as well.  He might not be watching the article.  If he still doesn't engage you should reinstate the edit.  If he reverts you again, seek an opinion from a neutral editor. Ryan Vesey 19:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was sort of my fault actually... I didn't know how to reopen the discussion about the consensus, and there were a lot of questions like mine, so I kept agreeing with them, and then someone told me to "stop the incessant carping". That sort of got me worked up, but I didn't go to the editor and yell at him. I don't know what decision they reached, because I've never gone back there. That's why I'm scared of being bashed by those editors again... Red Hat On Head (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But maybe I could try the test...? Red Hat On Head (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm substituting the test now, as for being bashed, I think you should stick by . He seems like a friendly editor who will be able to help you with the nuances of Indian Film articles even better than I can. Ryan Vesey 17:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Policy
1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
 * A Policy is something that should be followed (like not vandalizing pages), guidelines are sort of instructions, and essays are not rules or anything, but they give out information. Like the one you showed me, Guidance for younger editors.

2) Can Policy change?
 * A Not very often, but it is sort of like consensus, so it can change.

3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?
 * A Well. Yes, and no. For example, the consensus thing that I went through. Was sort of like a bureaucracy. Because sometimes whoever makes the decision of consensus (whether it changes or not), maybe the admin or whatever, might be biased or something. But on the other hand, there are editors who are open and willing to listen, so. Red Hat On Head (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All good answers. One difference between policies/guidelines and essays is that all policies and guidelines have been approved by the community, essays have not.  The main difference between policies and guidelines is that guidelines have more exceptions.  Many people say Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy because of Ignore all rules, but there are good reasons to believe that it is and that it isn't a bureaucracy.  I apologize for the late reply, do you have any questions/ are you ready for the next test? Ryan Vesey 18:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine! I'm ready! :D Red Hat On Head (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2012 (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. For more information on that, see the optional lesson on Advanced Templates.
 * Cool! Yeah, I have some experience with templates, but I have a question. You know those userboxes on my userpage at the bottom? Can I put the table to the right of the barnstars so that they're level? Red Hat On Head (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it all right if I mess with your userpage a bit to find something that works? Ryan Vesey 21:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, that'll be awesome! Red Hat On Head (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2012 (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:Ryan Vesey/Adopt/Red Hat On Head/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: intend  (Template module)

2) My name is Red Hat On Head and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
 * A: intend  (Template module)

3) My name is Red Hat On Head and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module)
 * A: intend  (Template module)

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

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

You can use User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Template beginner to help you out as well. This is a difficult subject for many people, and it's fine if you have difficulty understanding it. Ryan Vesey 20:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Whew, finally! :D I hope it's all right! Red Hat On Head (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)