User:Soni/Adopt/WorldTraveller101

Hi, WorldTraveller101. I hope you are excited about your adoption program. I know that I am. Keep in mind that is my first time as an adopter, so I might make some beginner's mistakes. However, I trust that you will be able to benefit from the lessons and tests that I have for you. If you have any questions about anything related to the program, you can post them at User talk:TheOriginalSoni/Adopt/WorldTraveller101 or on my regular talk page. You may begin by reading the first lesson, which I am posting below. Let me know when you are ready to take the test, or if you have any questions.

Introduction
Welcome to your adoption program. I hope that as you go through the lessons and tests, you will develop a much better understanding of how Wikipedia works and what role you can play in it. My talk page is always open should you have any questions. In your first lesson, you will cover three things: The Five Pillars, How articles should be written and Reliable sources. The informaiton on the Five Pillars was copied-and-pasted from 5P on May 14, 2013. Please make sure that you understand all the material before attempting to take the test.

The Five Pillars
The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates can be summarized in five "pillars":


 * BluePillar.svg Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are.


 * GreenPillar.svg Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
 * We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.


 * YellowPillar.svg Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.
 * Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources. Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first.


 * OrangePillar.svg Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
 * Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution, and remember that there are other articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss.


 * RedPillar.svg Wikipedia does not have firm rules.
 * Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected.

How articles should be written
The articles on 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 not appear, nor should an editor make changes based solely on personal experience. To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Our readers should be able to confirm anything they read on Wikipedia by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything that cannot be verified elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.

Reliable sources
Information on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. So, what is a reliable 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 one of the following: a published material with a reliable publication process, an author who is 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 on the topic you are writing about. MLB.com is certainly a reliable source on matters related to Major League Baseball, but that does not make it a reliable source for information about NASA. It is certainly possible that a source could provide accurate information on a matter that it is not generally associated with. However, the best method is to use sources that are clearly related to the subject.

A source that is self-published is usually considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception, so self-published sources should generally not be used. This means that anything in a forum, blog and even most websites will be 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. For the sake of neutrality, an article really should not be entirely derived from a direct source.

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

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

Questions?
Do you have any questions? If not, please let me know when you are ready to take the test. AutomaticStrikeout ?

Test
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it really shouldn't take more than 30 minutes. I'm looking for thoughtfulness in your answers, and reserve the right to post follow-up questions should your answer be ambiguous or not on the right track. Good luck, and here we go:

1.) Q- You have heard from a friend that Mitt Romney has been appointed the chancellor of Harvard University. Can you add this to Romney's (or Harvard's) article? Why or why not?
 * A- No, this is only speculation. You must cite a reliable source that states Romeny's appointment.
 * Yes, that is correct. 5/5

2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you believe is clearly racist. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
 * A- No. That is an opinion. Wikipedia is written from a neutral POV and it should not include personal opinions, as others might not find it to be racist.
 * I'll give you full credit for this one, but keep in mind that if the cartoon is widely considered racist, that viewpoint might be something to write about if you could find enough reliable sources. Unless this was a really big deal, it probably wouldn't merit mention on the racism article. 5/5

3.) Q- You find a reliable article that says Americans are more likely to get diabetes than British people and British people are more likely to get cancer than Americans. You find another reliable article that says Americans are Capitalists and British people are Socialists. Can you include information that says Capitalists are more likely to get diabetes and socialists are more likely to get cancer anywhere on Wikipedia?
 * A- No. That is technically original research, as that is not a statistic that is explicitly stated in the source.
 * Yes, definitely original research. 5/5

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
 * A- For MSNBC, no. But for Sarah Palin, yes, since it is news and can provide news stories about the person.
 * FOX News is a competitor of MSNBC and therefore, due to a possible conflict of interest, not the best source to use for matters related to MSNBC (although I would have liked it if you had explained why you said no for MSNBC). Due to Palin's many appearances on FOX News, the potential conflict of interest is there as well. As a result, you get half-credit. 2.5/5

5.) Q- One editor thinks that Justin Verlander is the greatest pitcher in baseball and wants to say so on Verlander's Wikipedia article. Another editor disagrees and argues that the article should claim that Verlander is actually the second-best, because Scott Kazmir is better. Who is right?
 * A- Neither is correct, until/unless one of them provides a reliable source, such as a recent survey comparing the two.
 * I'm not going to give full credit here, because you would need more than just a single survey. Generally speaking, statements that refer to someone or something as the "greatest" anything should be avoided. 4/5

6.) Q- A "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the newspaper's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
 * A- No. Forums are generally not reliable sources, even from officials.
 * Correct. 5/5

7.) Q- Would you object to the "about us" section on say Burger King's website being used as a citation in its article? (Hint: see WP:SELFSOURCE)
 * A- Yes. Generally, per WP:SELFSOURCE, they are not reliable, unless it is from an expert in the field/subject/topic.
 * Agreed. Now, I suppose Burger King could be a reliable source for basic information such as the year it was founded, but it would probably be best to find a different source. 5/5

8.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?
 * A- Yes. Wikipedia has policies about verifiability. Even if all think the sky is blue, some astronaut in outer space could've posted a tweet saying that scientifically the sky is bronze, so it needs to be backed up for verifiability.
 * Two relevant pages: WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. When in doubt, source. If something is obvious, it should not be hard to find sources. 5/5


 * Grade and comments: 36.5/40 - That is a passing grade. You did a pretty good job of giving policy-based answers, which I like. Your answers to questions 4 and 5 were not the greatest, but I've already stated why above (and if you want further explanation, just ask). At this point, I am posting lesson 2.

Wikiquette
WP:Wikiquette, or the etiquette of Wikipedia, is a concept that you may already be familiar with, depending how many of the different Wikipedia pages you've read.

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. Signing helps others to know who wrote the post and when it was written, making it easier for them to follow a discussion.
 * Try and keep to threading. This means that when you are replying to a comment, you will insert additional indentation, represented by a colon, : . Talk pages should something like the example below. 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 other Wikipedians may 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. Therefore, if you are doing the nominating, make sure you notify the article creator.
 * Watch out for common mistakes.
 * Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
 * Comment on the edits, not the editor. You'll read more about this when studying dispute resolution.

Questions
Any questions or are you ready for the test? AutomaticStrikeout ?

Test
Here is the test:

1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
 * A- To assume good faith is to [in terms of experienced users] to have the belief that they did it to help, not to harm or disrupt. If they do make a small mistake that's not big and you trout them or gently remind them, that's good faith. For newer users, especially potential vandals, socks, disruptive editors, trolls, etc. it means to be light on the words and assume that they are not fully aware of policy. You should gently introduce policy and see if they change after feeling welcome.
 * That's a fairly good answer. Trouts should not be used unless you are dealing with an experienced editor. Also, your sentence about newer users is interesting, as I would say that good faith should decrease the more obvious it is that someone is not being helpful. Anyway, you are on the right track. 5/5

2.) Q- Explain how you would deal with this scenario using specifics: You are working in New Page Patrol and come across a new page that, though it's content is fine, has a few minor formatting issues. The page is three minutes old. You fix the format issues on the page. A few minutes later, you get a nasty note on your talk page which states that you caused the new editor, who created the page, an edit conflict by performing your few minor corrections. He was unaware of how to correct an edit conflict, and therefore lost everything he was trying to do. He even goes so far as to start an AN/I discussion about how you're incompetent and should butt out of his editing. What specific steps would you take?
 * A- You should go to the ANI thread and describe what happened and get a reply from the new user who reported you and then (re)introduce policies, such as no personal attacks and explain about edit conflicts and how to fix it, so the editor can then apologize and fix it.
 * That is mostly correct. Yes, you should try to help the new user, applying policies to do so. However, when someone is being uncivil, it is usually better to focus more on addressing their complaint instead of their tone. Addressing their tone will likely rile them more and somebody else will probably link NPA anyway (which is better than you doing it since the new user is less likely to listen to you). You also should note that when patrolling new pages, it is probably best not to make minor edits to a very new page, since the page creator may still be working on it. The question you were asked here was based on a real scenario that I was involved in (although not in a way mentioned in the question). From my experience, it is generally best to leave the newest articles alone. I don't even patrol new pages at all anymore. Anyway, I'll give you one point off for this one. 4/5

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

3a.) Position A?
 * A- Rod's Mate
 * Yes. 5/5

3b.) Position B?
 * A- Rod
 * Yes again. 5/5

3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- Absolutley not. If the user is awfully familiar with templates, then it is very possible they "studied" about it. Just assume good faith that the user is here to edit constructively and that they know it because they looked it up, so they can help/
 * Spot on! 5/5

24/25 – You passed. I'll post the third lesson.
 * Grade and comments

Dispute resolution
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia and no matter how obviously helpful your changes may seem, if you participate here on a regular basis, you are very likely to eventually end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more probable as you get into the more drama–filled areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more controversial the topic, the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.

I'm going to go through some of the different methods of dispute resolution that we have on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.

Simple Resolution
If you find yourself in a dispute, I don't necessarily expect you to back down. If you believe you are right, it's understandable for you to want to stand firm. Nevertheless, you should still attempt to resolve the dispute. Here are some basic dispute resolution practices:

First of all, assume good faith. Assume that the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. Given them the benefit of the doubt that they are not trying to deliberately cause problems. Try to see things from their point of view and consider if perhaps you can both come to a compromise.

Keep calm. Although it might seem urgent to you, a decision on the dispute can wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version, it is very possible 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 Reverts 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 stay focused on the different arguments and their merits, not on the people involved in the dispute. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Attacks on the character of an editor are never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editor's argument and respond to that.

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

Accusing other editors of making personal attacks, acting in bad faith, practicing ownership, committing vandalism or doing any number of other negative things will fall into the second choice from the paragraph above. If the other editor(s) are actually guilty of wrongdoing, don't make ugly accusations. Instead follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, get up and have a cup of tea. Play a game of racketball. Don't be unwilling to step away when you realize you are beginning to get riled up. Otherwise, you may wind up typing something you'll regret.

Wikipedia dispute resolution process
If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed at 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 have intervene, there is an WP:Editor Assistance noticeboard. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the dispute.

Third opinion
You can get an uninvolved editor 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 way to get a third opinion is to look at the article talk page and see which projects are associated with the article. Then, go to the talk page of one or more of those projects and get some "expert" advice. 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 specialize 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 involved that you would if you tried 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 in order for the request to be certified.

Arbitration
I really hope you'll never have to try this. It's the last resort. The community has elected it's most trusted and willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but do your best to avoid ending up there.

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

Remember: you could be wrong!
You could be acting against consensus! However, as long as you are open to the possibility and have been focusing on the disputed content instead of the disputing editors, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realize you are flogging a dead horse.

Any questions?
Questions about any of the above?

Test
This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless !
 * I'm grading this at the request of TheOriginalSoni—I'll try to follow AutomaticStrikeout's grading scheme for continuity's sake.

1.) Q- In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.).
 * A-


 * Editor assistance: Is when another editor from WP:Editor Assistance noticeboard and they won't intervene, but is rather someone to talk to.
 * Third opinion: A third, uninvolved editor steps in to give an opinion
 * Mediation: A set of trusted users that can get involved and try to help.
 * Request for comment: Is used to draw the community to the discussion. This is often not used and should be the second to last resort when all else above fails.
 * Arbitration: An absolute last resort that generally only occurs on extremely complicated or divided situations.
 * I'll give this a 5/5, because everything is correct. Perhaps a little more detail might have been nice, but you got the basics.

2.) Q- Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question:
 * Part A) Is this edit warring?
 * A- No, content disputes are not edit wars.
 * Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
 * A- They should try to get editor assistance at the article's talk page. If they are unable to resolve it, they continue each step of the process until a resolution is met.
 * 2.5/5 Part A is incorrect. Content disputes are very frequently the cause of edit wars. There are only a select few circumstances in which repeatedly reverting another editor is acceptable: WP:NOT3RR give a simple list. Part B is correct.

3.) Q- Imagine you are participating in an Articles for deletion discussion. You post your opinion and let's just say you think the article should be deleted. The creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent, intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation?
 * A- You can either continue to respond calmly or if you cannot, you should exit the situation.
 * 5/5 That is a good way to handle it. With such obvious personal attacks as those, a civility warning to the editor would also be appropriate, but it is also sometimes wise to allow another editor to engage the incivil editor regarding his or her behavior.

4.) Q- In your own words, how should you approach any dispute?
 * A- You should approach it calmly and stay focused and give your reasons in a firm, calm manner.
 * 5/5 Words to live by.

Grade and comments 17.5/20, or 88%. This is a pass; it's difficult to score too highly with only 20 possible points. Your answers were good, except for the incorrect answer about edit warring. I'd say with a quick review of the edit warring policy, you'll be set to move on to the next section. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The Marking scheme - There are three kind of marks to every question- A combination of two of these marks would indicate somewhere in between the two standards. Based on all the responses to all the questions, we'll see on whether or not to move to the next lesson.
 * ✅ - Good answer; interprets policy correctly and shows a sound understanding of the issues involved.
 * - Incomplete/insufficient answer; whilst partly correct, there are better responses to this question.
 * - Poor answer; shows an inadequate understanding of the policies and guidelines concerned.

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.

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- Wikipedia is free. Anyone can see and edit Wikipedia.
 * ✅ Correct. You may also want to note that while Wikipedia is free, there may be images and other such files on Wikipedia which are not. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- You can upload a picture to Commons if it is either your own work or it is free work that states the ability to upload. For example, flickr files. One's that say "All Rights Reserved" are examples of pictures you can't upload. If it says "Some Rights Reserved", you must see what the restrictions are and if none do not meet policy, then you may upload it.
 * ✅ Perfect. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- Yes, if it is free, where you can upload the entire thing.
 * ✅. For non free music files, we sometimes upload a part of it to be used as a sample. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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 exception is if all pictures allow derivative works and are free, since this appears to be a derivative work.
 * ✅ Absolutely. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- No, unless the photo is irreplaceable, then it can be used under fair use.
 * ✅. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Depends. If it is the only image of a prisoner on death row, then it can be used
 * ✅ Yes. Also, if it is a significant enough image in itself. It wouldnt be a rarity for the last images of very well known criminals to be well known and significant. Similar to the Tank Man image. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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- You can open an AfD, although a CSD is preferable.
 * ✅ Copyright is a serious business at Wikipedia, and so there is no needd to wait for an AfD. We directly tag it for speedy deletion if the copyright issue is big enough that everything on the page is copied. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- The big, main issue I see is that it splits the edit history.
 * ✅ That was what I was looking for. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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:Lunch-atop-a-skyscraper-c1932.jpg
 * ✅ Correct.

Deletion
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.


 * Soni asked me to run over the test, and I've got a few follow up questions if you don't mind... Worm TT( talk ) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A One where you'd PROD it is if it does not meet any CSD criterion, but it's deletion will not likely be contested. An AfD should occur if it is likely going to be contested with valid, legit reasons.
 * ✅ It's important to remember that someone can still object to a prod after deletion and it will be undeleted - Prod is for situations where it's very unlikely to be contested at all. Worm TT( talk ) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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 An example of an A7 situation is maybe a new user rights about a biography about a friend, who just so happens to be an amazing football player, but is not written about in newspapers or does not back up notability would meet A7.
 * actually, no. If the person is an amazing football player, they may well pass A7, even if they're not notable. Can you think of a situation where this might happen? Hint: A7 isn't about notability. Worm TT( talk ) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

3) First
 * A CSD per G3.
 * A hoax? Vandalism? Do you think the person who wrote that was trying to damage the encyclopedia? Worm TT( talk ) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A better answer would be A1/A3: Little or no context.

4) Second
 * A A7. BLP violations, unsourced, and because it's unsourced, it's notability is in question as well.
 * Unsourced BLPs are handled with BLPPROD, not A7. What BLP violations do you see? Again, A7 isn't about notability. (That's not to say A7 is the wrong answer, but your current reasoning for A7 isn't right) - Would you like to have another go, explaining your thought process? Worm TT( talk ) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For BLP violations, this is unsourced, which is a violation of the BLP policy. On second thought, an AfD would occur, with the reasoning being it is not notable and that it is unsourced/BLP violations.

5) Third
 * A CSD per general criteria G1.
 * ✅Very good Worm TT( talk ) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

6) Fourth
 * A Better to have an AfD discussion, as it does not necessarily fit any CSD criterion, and others might contest it's deletion.
 * Do you think that the article has to be deleted? What would put as the reason for AfD? Worm TT( talk ) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, adding cleanup templates, such as lacking reliable sources, etc could make it so not even an AfD must occur.

7) Fifth
 * A CSD per A7 and G3. Although G3 is more nonsense than vandalism, it can be comprehended and per the criterion, it is more G3 than G1.
 * . I agree it's not G1, as you can understand it. It's possibly a hoax, and more likely to be vandalism than the earlier question. If I were to say I'd chose A1... do you agree or disagree? Why? Worm TT( talk ) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I now think it is G3 and A1 in that case.