User:WormTT/Adopt/Jedd Raynier

Hello Jedd Raynier, and welcome to my adoption school. Your first assignment is below, and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Bmusician/Adoption, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. The tests in the assignments 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. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see! → B  music  ian  12:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What are the five pillars?
The "five pillars" are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates.
 * The first pillar tells us that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and also what it is not.
 * The second pillar states that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
 * The third pillar states that Wikipedia is free content, and also talks about copyright.
 * The fourth pillar is about civility and "wikiquette".
 * The fifth pillar states that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This means that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it and do not worry about making mistakes.

The Core Content Policies
The core content policies on Wikipedia are neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiablity.

Editing from a neutral point of view (often abbreviated as "NPOV") is required on Wikipedia. Editing from a neutral point of view means representing unbiased and significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and giving due weight to all points of view. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable - so any information unsupported by a reliable source does not belong here. The personal experience or opinion of an editor also does not belong to Wikipedia.

Reliable sources
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 not considered reliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.

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

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

Discussion
If there are any questions you have about this lesson, ask them! My job, as your adopter, is to help you with any problem you may have. If you don't have any questions that you need to ask, your next step is to take a short test regarding this lesson. If you are ready to take the test, simply tell me and I will hand it out to you.

Question and answer
Q1: Hello there! Speaking of "source", you mean referenced materials right? Do you need to place the origin of your sources in the "references" section of an article?
 * A: Hello! Yes, you need to place the origin of your sources in your reference, but not in the "references" section of an article. All sources need to be correctly formatted in the format of inline citations, so the sources shouldn't be placed in the references section of an article. See this for more information.

Q2: Let's have this situation:
 * You have a book. It has information that you think can improve the article entitled "Parenting".
 * In this situation, your source is a book, not a website in the Internet. How do you display that in the article?
 * A: You can use sources which are not online, but which you have found in a library or elsewhere—in which case, leave out the information that is not relevant. The newspaper example above would be formatted like this:


 * After you add this information and save your edit, it appears as:
 * Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, London, 27 October 2005.


 * Here is an example for a book:




 * After you add this information and save your edit, it appears as:
 * Charmley, John (2006). The Princess and the Politicians, p. 60. Penguin Books, London. ISBN 0140289712.


 * Make sure you put two apostrophes on either side of the title (to generate italics), rather than quotation marks.

I hope that answers those questions adequately, feel free to ask more ;) and let me know when you're ready for the test. → B  music  ian  15:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Test
Here's your first test! This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There is no time limit - answer in your own words, and we'll talk about your answers. Please note that simple and short yes/no answers are not acceptable in this test, nor in any future tests.

'Note: Some answers might look silly, please look for the right answer first and then go to the bar to laugh at the silly things there. Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) is really sad for a leaving Wikipedian. 14:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)'

"Hey, Chevy Malibu is available only in red! If you want green, white, blue, black, and so on, go to the hardware store and buy color paint for your car!"
 * 1) Your best friend says that the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film "is the stupidest and most boring movie ever". Can you add this to the article? Why or why not?
 * Answer:An opinion should NOT be placed on the article; it is a place for information and not opinion. Go to the talk page instead and post it there.
 * You're right about the first part, but the opinion still should not be placed on the talk page.
 * 1) A blog titled "John Doe Fan Blog", that has no affiliation with the subject, states that John Doe will be going to Hong Kong on 7 July. No other source confirms this fact, so can you add this to Wikipedia? Why or why not?
 * Answer:NO please. A reliable source is a source from an official website (no effect to updates), media source (usually news programs or sites), or others that are really considered reliable, such as a true encyclopedia. In this situation, your source is just a blog - a site used to post current news. So it isn't really a reliable source, even if the person posts his leave on Facebook or Twitter. If you want to confirm this, go to him personally and go ask him right away.
 * 1) Is the official Facebook page of KFC a reliable source?
 * Answer:No not even. Per the answer above: You have to visit KFC's official website (or local website) before you trust the source.
 * 1) *NOTE: The official page of KFC on Facebook is based on Wikipedia, so what is the difference between Facebook's and Wikipedia's version? If you're a hacker, go edit Facebook's version of the page.
 * 2) Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. You decide to do a minor copyedit and fix some spelling and grammar errors. 10 minutes later, you get a message from the editor who created the article, saying: "STOP CHANGING MY ARTICLE! I made it and you have no right to edit it without my permission. It's my intellectual property and therefore I own the copyright." How do you respond?
 * Answer:Now it's more challenging. BUT: Don't worry. Ownership is already against the rules: It states that an editor cannot and must not own an article; i.e. only the creator can edit the page, as if it was his/her.
 * 1) *So this is what I'm gonna respond:
 * 2) *"Hey! I've just edited your article, but you reverted it. Remember, you may NOT own an article you created yourself. What if it becomes famous? Many editors will come and revise your page. So the page is NOT yours...it's a public property."
 * 3) *If you're a hacker, go enter the editor's account and say "The world is mine" (The tagline of Toyota Fortuner in the Philippines).
 * You're right that ownership is against established policy, but hacking the editor's account can get you blocked from editing, and biting the new editor isn't good either.
 * 1) You have just discovered from a friend that the new Chevrolet Malibu is only going to be available in red. Can you add this to the Chevy Malibu article?　Why or why not?
 * Answer:Wait. Haven't you read the official website of Chevrolet? It states there what your friend may not know. Also,don't just trust your friend. Remember, sources come from official sites (see answer for Question #2) and NOT NEVER EVER from your friend. If you're a tsismoso (Philippine term for a person who tells stories to others, without a source), you can shout:
 * 1) Would you consider BBC News a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * Answer:Probably. BBC's official website tells you about current news, but like Wikipedia's sister project, Wikinews, you can't say that it's really what the news is all about. So that's a 50:50. And if you really want to post the news on Wikinews, go ahead and look for BBC's version and ITV's version and say that it was from Wikipedia - you're the tsismoso. We Filipinos really love those kinds of people, but don't expect that it's YOU
 * 1) Everybody knows that the sky is blue, right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze. Does he need a source?
 * Answer:OOPS! The editor doesn't need a source (and it's so silly to say that the sky is bronze) since it's his opinion. He can post it freely on the talk page of the corresponding article.
 * 1) *If you were the editor, go ride the hot air balloon and see if the sky's really bronze. If the sky's bronze, you may have color blindness or you just saw your medal carved on it: The best Wikipedian ever!
 * He still can't post it on the talk page, but you're right otherwise.

What is wikiquette?
Wikiquette basically means "wiki ettiquette", and is the etiquette of Wikipedia.

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. 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 MediaWiki software will substitute the four tlides with your signature and timestamp, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
 * Remember to reply to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, : . 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.
 * Comment on the edits. NEVER COMMENT ON AN EDITOR. EVER.

Discussion
Any questions or would you like to take the test? The test is pretty brief...consisting of only three questions!

Q & A ... A talk show
Q1: In discussions, we usually place colons when commenting on a post of an editor. For instance, ...
 * Hey! The most boring of all stories is this: The Diary of a Wimpy Kid! The Bored person is waiting for a story
 * How did you say so? Sourcer and the sources
 * Wait. It's an opinion. The Bored person is waiting for a story

But why in some statements, such as in your example above, there's no need to place three colons in the 4th statement? Q2:As we all know, a good faith edit is different from vandalism. We all know how to differentiate them. But how do we identify a vandalsim-looking like edit from a good faith edit? How do we apply assuming good faith here? Let me know when your ready for the test. → B  music  ian  02:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, for every reply, we place one more colon for every succeeding reply.
 * A: If the number of indents gets a little bit large, you can "reset" the indent and use no colons at all. Use unindent to indicate that you have reset the indent.
 * A: Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm the encyclopedia. You should AGF if an edit contravenes policy but was not made in an attempt to harm Wikipedia.

I am ready. So let's go on with the test.

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


 * 1) Position A?
 * Answer:Freddie
 * 1) Position B?
 * Answer:Jane
 * 1) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible sockpuppet?
 * Answer:Wait. A low edit count does NOT really mean that that account is a sockpuppet. Here are proofs of sockpuppetry:
 * Editing habits: If an account and another account alternates editing times, it is possible that one of the accounts is a sockpuppet.
 * Focus: By that I mean that the accounts associated with each other edit the same place, such as multiple accoints voting in adminship candidacies more than once.
 * These events canNOT take place in sockpuppetry:
 * Alternate accounts: These are used for security, just indicated that this account is an alternate account of somebody.
 * Examples:
 * User:Toyota Innova
 * User:MikeLynch Public
 * User:ClueBot NG

Follow up
Just pertaining to my question 1 above, you said that you can reset the alignment by not placing any colon at the start of your reply. But why in this discussion, some comments have used more than three colons? Also, what is the mark below?


 * Because the comment with three colons is replying to the one with two colons. And the mark is used to reset an indent. You should use the template unindent to do so.

This is probably the most important assignment I'll give, because this is the only one where failure to adhere exactly according to policy will result in an indefinite block from editing the encyclopedia – pay attention.

Glossary
There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. Here is a glossary of the terms.

CC-BY-SA and GFDL
On Wikipedia, you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL. In fact, if you notice, every time when you edit, the following text is underneath the editing window: 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.

Image Copyright on Wikipedia
Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. As I said before, any work that is submitted must be released under the CC-BY-SA License and the GFDL.

There are two types of images on Wikipedia, free images and 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 the non free content criteria in order to use them.

What is fair use?
Problems arise when people upload images that are not their own. Most images are under some form of copyright, even if it's not explicitly stated anywhere. This is usually the case with anything found on the internet. When these images are uploaded, Wikipedia must adhere to a very strict policy known as "fair use". What this basically is doing is giving us a reason to use an otherwise non-free image, on the basis that it is for educational purposes, using it has no measurable effect on the copyright holder's rights, and that we have no other alternative. The establishment of this reason is called the fair use rationale, part of a set of criteria that MUST accompany any fair use/copyright tag on Wikipedia. These criteria are:
 * A specific fair use tag (see link above) that describes what the image is.
 * The source of the image (this is usually a website, but could also be a book or magazine that you scanned the picture out of)
 * The image itself must be of low resolution. If it is high resolution, that version must be deleted and replaced with another (essentially, worse) version.
 * A fair use rationale explaining:
 * Where the image is to be used (This page MUST be in the main (article) namespace. Fair use images MUST NOT be used anywhere else)
 * That the image cannot be used to replace any marketing role or otherwise infringe upon the owner's commercial rights to the image
 * How the image is being used, in a way that fits within the fair use policy (i.e., identification purposes, etc.)
 * That there is no way the image can possibly be replaced with a free version

Only when an image meets all of these criteria may it be used. Fair use images must be used in at least one article (not "orphaned"), and articles using fair use images must use as few of them as possible. Any image that does not meet these criteria to the letter will be deleted. Any user that repeatedly uploads images not meeting these criteria to the letter will be blocked.
 * The image must have been previously published elsewhere

As a further note, I mentioned that fair use images must not be able to be replaced by a free alternative. What this basically means is, there is no way you, me, or anyone else could go out and take a picture of this same thing and release it under a free license. For example:
 * I could upload a picture of George W. Bush from the White House. Normally government works are automatically public domain, but let's say for the purpose of this discussion that the White House holds the copyright to that particular picture of the President. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a speech Bush is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) This 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.

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.

For a full description of the policies and guidelines concerning fair use, read WP:FU.

Discussion
This is a pretty complex topic; is there anything you don't understand? Or are you ready for the test?

Some more questions
Q1: and are both under a claim of fair use: They are logos of the automobile manufacturers Toyota and Hyundai. Why can't they be uploaded in Commons? If there's somebody who does so, what will be charged against him? (if any, if none, what is it, then?)
 * A: As commons is a free repository, fair use isn't permitted. See Commons:Fair use for more information. If someone uploads a fair use image to Commons, their image will be deleted and they will be reminded that doing so is against Commons' policy - if they persist in uploading the fair use image to Commons, instead of uploading it to where it should be, they will find themselves blocked indefinitely from contributing to Commons.

Q2:What is the criteria for an image on Wikipedia, such as, to be transferred to Commons?
 * A: I hope WP:TRANSFER is clear enough for you.

Q3: If any, could a picture on Commons be transferred to Wikipedia?
 * A: I don't see how that would be necessary. Images on Commons are available globally.

Let me know when you're ready for test. → B  music  ian  03:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm ready for the test.
 * Then let's go. → B  music  ian  03:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Test
Although copyright on Wikipedia may be a complex topic, please keep in mind that simple yes/no answers are not acceptable.
 * 1) Name at least two situations in which it is appropriate to upload an image to Commons.
 * Answer:It's really simple:
 * First: Free use images are allowed to be uploaded on Commons, as long as it is your own work.
 * Second:Those NOT under a claim of fair use are permitted: It is either the media file is your own work, the copyright has expired, the author has granted permission to allow you to upload your work to Commons.
 * 1) Is Wikipedia really free? Why?
 * Answer: NOT really free. Wikipedia is, although its tagline is "The free encyclopedia", NOT really, and will never be free, as any media file and information can be entered to Wikipedia even without the notice of others.
 * 1) Can you upload a press photo of the pianist Lang Lang under a claim of fair use?
 * Answer:Yes, only if the author (the artist) grants you permission to do so. But if no, obviously you won't.
 * Follow Up Question: You do not need the copyright holder's permission to upload a photo under a claim of fair use. So could you do that? Does a press photo of Lang Lang adhere to all of the non-free content criteria?
 * Answer:No, not at all' since you're just uploading a photo of Lang Lang, a public figure (artist), so why ask his permission? He's known by the public.
 * 1) Can you upload the cover art of an album under a claim of fair use?
 * Answer:Yes, only if the author grants you permission to do so. But if no, obviously you won't.
 * Follow Up Question: You do not need the copyright holder's permission to upload a photo under a claim of fair use. So could you do that? Does the cover art of an album adhere to all of the non-free content criteria?
 * Answer:No, not at all since you're just uploading a photo of the cover of the album, a public figure (band), so why ask for permission? The band is known by the public.
 * 1) Can you upload a press photo of a prisoner on death row under a claim of fair use?
 * Answer: Still, yes, if the media has released news about the prisoner, or no if media has not released the file yet.
 * NOTICE: All answers for questions 3 to 5 pertain to uploading files to Wikipedia and NOT to Commons.
 * 1) You find an article about a company that is a direct copy of the About Us page on their website. What would you do?
 * Answer:Should you ever visit the page and link to the company's website, you may see that copyright has been violated.
 * It's as simple and as complicated as this: First, you have to tell to the editor that he/she has violated the rules of placing article information on Wikipedia; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT an extended website of the company. Also, you have to tell the website (obviously the author) through email if they can grant permission that some of the website's content be placed on Wikipedia. (PLEASE: If the author agreed, please write them in your own words.) If they agree, the said condition MUST be followed. But if they disagree, you'd rather remove the content on the article than making the article look like the website of the company.
 * A prominent example of the answer above can be simulated by this revision of the article Wärtsilä.
 * 1) Go to any Wikipedia article and find an image that is used under "fair use". Link to the image in your answer.
 * Answer: File:Wärtsilä.svg
 * You don't seem to understand fair use at an acceptable level. I have therefore written follow up questions to some of your answers. Again, don't take this as a negative, it should help you in a friendly and easy way. → B  music  ian  01:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

More questions
I am very sorry Jedd, but you still do not seem to understand fair use adequately. Not understanding fair use is a big problem, because if you contravene the fair use policy, you could end up being blocked indefinitely from editing the encyclopedia. Please don't take this as a negative. You are an absolutely wonderful adoptee, and with just a few more questions, you can understand fair use better.

Read WP:FU and the lesson, it will help you in answering these questions.
 * 1) According to the lesson, what is fair use?
 * Answer:Fair use is any image that is ''NOT FREE' and is under copyright.
 * No, any image that is not free is non-free media. Fair use is, according to the glossary, "Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country."
 * 1) Please give me an example of a non-free image you could upload under a claim of fair use.
 * Answer: thumb|right|100px|alt=The logo of [[Toyota|The logo of Toyota, under a claim of fair use.]]
 * The file on your right is a file that can be uploaded under a claim of fair use: It is a company logo.


 * 1) Please give me an example of a non-free image that you cannot upload under a claim of fair use, because it would be considered replaceable fair use.
 * Answer:
 * 1) A fair use rationale must explain what four important things, according to the lesson?
 * Answer:It's only the four of these below. NOTHING ELSE
 * A specific fair use tag or caption what well describes an image.
 * The source of the image, which can be a book, magazine, newspaper, website,... as long as it is part of the media.
 * The image itself must be of low resolution, so it must not be so large to time out the loading of a page.
 * The image must have been previously published elsewhere.
 * Wait! There's more!
 * The fair use rationale criteria:
 * Where the image is to be used: It MUST be used only in the main article and NOT anywhere else.
 * That the image cannot be used to replace any marketing role or else copyright infringement will be charged against the owner.
 * How the image is being used:It must fit the fair use policy, as stated above.
 * That there is no way the image can possibly be replaced with a free version: That is, for commercial purposes.

Deletion of an article and basically any page occurs when the page would take a fundamental re-write to conform with Wikipedia's accepted criteria for content of the encyclopedia. There are many reasons why a page would be deleted.
 * Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
 * Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
 * Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 * Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * Redundant or otherwise useless templates
 * Categories representing overcategorization
 * Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy
 * Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.
 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD)
The fastest way a page can be deleted is through speedy deletion. If a page meets at least one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, it must be tagged for speedy deletion, the creator of the page should be notified, and the page be deleted immediately.

Here is a list of all general criteria and important article criteria. For a complete list please view WP:CSD.

General criteria
Here is a list of general criteria. The criteria apply to all pages (meaning articles, talk pages, user pages, and even Wikipedia namespace pages.)
 * General criterion 1 (G1) – Patent Nonsense. Pages that meet this criterion consist entirely of incoherent text or gibberish and lack any meaningful content or history. This criterion does not apply to pages that are not in English, vandalism/hoaxes, poor writing, poorly translated, or basically anything that is coherent. It also doesn't apply to pages in the sandbox or in the user namespace. Tag these with db-nonsense
 * G2 – Test Pages. Pages meant entirely to test Wikipedia editing. Like G1, this criterion does not apply to pages in the sandbox or in the user namespace. Tag these with db-test
 * G3 – Vandalism and Hoaxes. Pages that are pure vandalism, such as blatant and obvious misinformation (hoaxes) and redirects created from page-move vandalism cleanup. Tag these with either db-vandalism or db-hoax
 * G4 – Recreation of Pages Deleted via a XfD. Pages that are sufficiently identical to another that was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. This criterion does not apply to pages that are not identical at all to the deleted page, pages in which the deletion was overturned as a result of a deletion review, or if the page was deleted through proposed deletion (PROD) or CSD. Tag these with db-repost
 * G5 – Banned Users. A page created by a block- or ban- evading sockpuppet in violation of the master's block or ban with no substantial edits by others. This criterion does not apply to pages that have substantial edits by others. This criterion should also not be applied to transcluded templates. Tag these with
 * G6 – Housekeeping. A page that needs to be deleted to perform non-controversial housekeeping tasks. Tag these with one of these templates:, , , , db-maintenance, db-house, db-disambig
 * G7 – Author Request. The author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith by either tagging the page or completely blanking it. Tag with db-author
 * G8 – Dependent on Non-Existent Page. A page that is dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as a talk page with no corresponding subject page, subpages with no parent page, an image page with no image, or a redirect to a bad target, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles. Tag with one of these: db-g8, db-talk, db-subpage, db-imagepage, db-redirnone, db-templatecat
 * G10 – Attack Pages. A page that threatens or disparages its subject or some other entity, and serves no other valid purpose. Attack pages include libel, legal threats, and a biography of a living person that is completely negative in tone and unsourced. Attack pages should be deleted when there's no neutral version in the history to revert to. Tag attack pages with db-attack and tag negative unsourced BLP's with db-negublp
 * G11 – Spam/advertising-only pages. A page that serves no other purpose but to promote its subject or some other entity. Spam pages should be deleted if it would take a fundamental re-write in order to be encyclopedic. This criterion does not apply if the page describes its subject from a neutral point of view. Tag these with db-spam
 * G12 – Copyright Violations. Pages that are a direct copy of copyrighted material with no assertion of the content being in the public domain or used under a claim of fair us. This criterion does not apply to pages that have non-infringing content in the history; consider posting to WP:CP if that is the case. Tag these with

Articles
I only have listed the most important article criteria here. These criteria apply only to articles. This means Articles for Creation submissions do not count.
 * Article Criterion 1 (A1) – No Context. A very short article that does not feature enough context to identify the subject of the article. It is advised that new page patrollers wait at least ten minutes before tagging this criterion. Although its purpose is to avoid WP:BITE, the page creator may not have finished working on the article in the first revision. Tag these with db-nocontext
 * A3 – No Content. Any article other than a disambiguation page or redirect that features only external links, category tags or "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help desk, chat-like comments, or a gallery of images. An article that has context but is very short does not apply under this criterion. Be very careful when tagging this criterion on newly created articles. Tag these with db-nocontent
 * A7 – No Indication of Importance. A page about an individual, organization (excluding educational institutions), musician or band, club, or web content that does not state why it is significant. The criterion does not apply to albums (A9), books, or software. Do not confuse this criterion with "not notable" . The criterion does not apply if the article makes a credible assertion of notability, even if the assertion is not supported by a reliable source. If the notability is unclear, you can either propose the article for deletion or list it at articles for deletion. Tag with either db-person, db-band, db-club, db-inc, db-web, or db-animal
 * A9 – No Indication of Importance (Albums). An article about a musical recording or album that does not indicate why it is significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or has been deleted. Both conditions must be true to tag under this criterion, so if the artist's article exists, this criterion does not apply. Likewise, if the artist's article does not exist (or has been deleted) but the article makes a credible claim of its significance, the criterion does not apply either. Tag with db-album
 * A10 – Duplicate of Existing Topic. A recently created article with no page history that duplicates an existing topic, and that does not improve information within any existing articles on the subject, and when the page title is not a plausible redirect to another page. Tag with

Proposed deletion (PROD)
If a page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion but you feel that it can be deleted without any controversy, you can propose it for deletion via WP:PROD. To propose an article for deletion, tag the article with and then notify the page creator.

There is only one disadvantage to proposed deletion. Anyone, even the page creator, can prevent the proposed deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted if that happens, open an Articles for Deletion debate, which I'll explain about below.

If the tag is not removed after seven days, the proposed deletion will expire and so the page will be deleted by an administrator.

PROD of unsourced BLP's
A biography of a living person that does not feature any references needs to be proposed for deletion. Do this by tagging the article with {{subst:blpprod}}. Unlike regular PROD the tag can only be removed after there is at least one reference to a reliable source.

The page is deleted if the tag is not removed after ten days, or if there are still no references.

Deletion discussions (XfD)
Deletion discussions (XfD, stands for Anything for Deletion) allows Wikipedians to discuss whether an article should be deleted or not. The result of the discussion depends on consensus. Only policy based arguments are considered while the discussion is closed. Deletion discussions are not a vote. Deletion discussions last for seven days, although the duration can be extended if the consensus is not clear after a week; likewise, they can be closed early if a consensus would be clear.

The template on the right shows all types of XfD's; the most common is AfD.

Discussion
Any questions or would you like to take the test?

Boom...more questions to come...
Q1: Stating that a page could be deleted by an editor on their own consent: They like a page to be deleted. What if the editor wants to delete a subpage he created by himself? (I mean, the editor's trying to create an article, but it appears to be one of his subpages)
 * A: The editor requests speedy deletion under criterion G7. The editor, however, must be the only author of substantial content.

Q2: This article is written like an advertisement. is there any way of deleting such an article?
 * A: The article is not applicable for G11, as it is not blatant advertising. If you think it should be deleted, you should PROD it or send it to AFD.

Let me know when you're ready for the test. → B  music  ian  07:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm now ready.

Test

 * 1) There is a new page created that says "William Durant was an American writer. He was born in 1885 and died in 1981. He and his wife Ariel were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1968." Would the page be applicable for speedy deletion? Why or why not?
 * Answer:No. As the article contain false information (as stated) about the biography of the person, and yet the article has NO SOURCED INFORMATION, the article, if in the first place, is applicable for speedy deletion. However, as the page is about a false biography, you can tag the article with the template.
 * Follow Up Question: The content in that article is true, as a Google search can tell you. So would it still be applicable for speedy deletion?
 * A:Yes: The source is NOT indicated.
 * 1) A newly created page consists of the following content: "John Doe is a big fat jerk with an ugly face. Too bad he suffers from AIDS." What should you do?
 * Answer:The article is purely vandalism about a living person. The article is applicable for criteria G3.
 * Follow Up Question: The article serves no purpose but to attack the subject - is there any other better criteria than G3?
 * A:Yes, and that is criteria G10 (attack page).
 * 1) A newly created article is about a living person. The person's notability is established but the article has no references. What should you do?
 * Answer:The article is proposable for deletion, as long as you place the template. However, if the article has been sourced after you place the deletion template, you can remove the template.
 * 1) A user tags an article for speedy deletion under A1 nearly ten seconds after the page was created. Was their action right, and why?
 * Answer:The article is applicable for deletion under criteria A1 IF AND ONLY IF it was proven that the page has NO content. Otherwise if the tagging of the article under such criteria is NOT justified, or is inappropriate, the tag should be removed.
 * Follow-up question: What is the article about, by the way?
 * Answer: The subject of the article is not relevant to the question - a user tags an article for speedy deletion under A1 nearly ten seconds after the page was created; was doing so an appropriate action?
 * 1) You propose an article for deletion. The minute after you place the PROD tag on the article, the tag was removed by the page creator. What should you do now?
 * Answer:You shall justify why you placed the article under speedy deletion. Should it be justified that the article can be speedily deleted, you shall place the tag. If it is NOT justified, you can let the edit go by NOT reverting it.
 * Follow-up question: So what is the article all about for it NOT to be under CSD criteria?
 * Answer: The topic of the article is not relevant to the question - if a PROD tag was removed by the author, and you still believe it should be deleted, what should you do? (The answer is in the lesson!)
 * 1) A newly created page consists of the following content: "asjdfkl;asjflk;sdajfl;asdjf;lksdajfl;kasdjfn asdfsda f" What should you do?
 * Answer:The page is purely composed of test edits, so that the page would look like a sandbox. The article is applicable for criteria G2.
 * 1) What does CSD A7 mean to you?
 * Answer:CSD A7 means a page about a public figure which does NOT state the significance of the topic.
 * NOTE: Not applicable for albums, books or software.

Cool tools
Tagging CSD and PROD are much easier with Twinkle. Go to WP:TW for instructions on how to install and use it!

No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, and no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very likely 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 edit-warring 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 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 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 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 editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand, and 2): It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.

Accusations of attacks, bad faith, ownership, 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). There's also WP:DRN which is fairly informal but focuses more on content disputes. The editors involved with all of these processes specialize in resolving disputes.

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 its 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 realize you are flogging a dead horse.

Discussion
If you have any questions, ask them now! Or would you like to take the test?

Bung! A set of questions...
Q1: Stating: "Bold, Revert, Discuss". This process goes in discussions between page revision arguments. What if in the process, something goes like this:
 * Editor L adds good faith content to a newly created page.
 * Ten minutes later, editor A, the creator of the page, places the page under criteria G7 of speedy deletion.
 * Ten minutes later, another editor, editor N, removes the tag placed and messages the editor (editor A) not to nominate pages that are not suitable for speeedy deletion.
 * Ten minutes later, editor D warns editor L not to edit new articles.
 * Later, the editors go through an argument.


 * If you are watching the page, what shall you do to be able to stop disputes?
 * A: Are you saying that if you are an editor uninvolved in the argument, what should you do to cease it? If so, you should ask the editors involved in the argument to remember to please assume good faith, keep cool, and follow bold, revert, discuss. If that doesn't work they should go through the dispute resolution process. Remember that they should not accuse each other of wrongdoing, or continue to edit war on the main article.

Q2: If arguments do not get resolved, what shall you do aside from assuming good faith?
 * A: No matter if you are in a dispute or not, you must assume good faith - no exception. People who edit Wikipedia believe in the project's future and try to help make it better, not hurt it.

Q3: There goes an edit conflict between a bot, an administrator and a bureaucrat and the edit conflict window appears in the admin's computer, the edit window appears that:
 * The versions of the three editors involved are all major improvements of the article on "Wikipedia".

The bureaucrat overwrote the edit of the bot, and he also overwrote those of the admin. Later, on the talk page, the three argued about the version of the page that they would like to appear on the article. Of course, the bot won't understand the admin and the bureaucrat, since he's NOT a true editor, physically. (In this case the bot is NOT online.) The bureaucrat insisted that his version be implemented. Ten minutes later, the admin replied if his version, along with the bot's, be implemented. Later, an editor, Deletionist, insisted that they should stop the arguments and vote for the version of the page to be implemented instead. But Revertionist reverted the edit of Deletionist and insisted that the bot, the admin, the bureaucrat, and he discuss the argument instead so that peace will prevail. Also, he said to Deletionist that he should assume good faith and keep cool in order to maintain peace and order between them. How should the bot, the admin, the bureaucrat and Revertionist discuss the problem, aside from keeping cool and discussing arguments?
 * A: Keeping cool and discussing arguments are the only way to stop a conflict - no exception. You can post at WP:EDITORASSISTANCE, WP:30 if discussion and keeping cool cannot solve the problem.

Q4: There was an IP editor who placed this text in the article Ninoy Aquino International Airport:
 * "NAIA Terminal 3 is the best airport ever, so let's go and ride the airplane at NAIA!"

Later, an administrator, without knowledge of vandalism, reverted the edit of the IP and blocked him right away without notice. His friend, a bureaucrat, upon noticing the admin's edit, granted the admin de-adminship immediately for improperly using the tools. Another bureaucrat, Example, granted de-bureaucratship to the said bureaucrat for not knowing what's going on (that is, an admin who blocked an IP who was granted de-adminship due to improper use of tools).
 * 'Was Example's action right? Who started it all and why? How should they act upon learning who started it all (if the situation is wrong prior to former question)?
 * A: No. Making one administrative mistake does not warrant any loss of rights. Everybody is wrong here.

Sir, I'm ready to take the test.

Test

 * 1) What does bold, revert, discuss mean to you?
 * A:BRD goes as simple as this:
 * One editor boldly makes an edit to an article, which he/she feels that can improve Wikipedia. Later, another editor reverts it, as he/she disagrees to the edit of the other editor. The editors involved will then discuss about their edits so that they'd come to an agreement, say, this version of the page will be implemented.
 * 1) 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:Editor A. Why?
 * See
 * As shown, the third numbering, I mean, edit, editor B made his third revert, while editor A's third edit is his second revert. YET.
 * So Editor A wins the edit war-edit conflict-dispute-war-fight-whatsoever you call the edit. (KIDDING!)

Third opinion is a process in which you can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute, that is, a third editor uninvolved in the dispute will come over to help solve a dispute. Request for comments allow the community to discuss with the editors involved to stop the dispute.
 * Actually, no one wins - they both lose. →  B  music  ian  01:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) What is vandalism?
 * A:Vandalism is any edit on Wikipedia that is placed in bad faith.
 * 1) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A:Editors in editor assistance are experienced and can offer suggestions in order to resolve disputes.
 * Answers are of adequacy! We shall move on

What is 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 decisions are not made based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of the 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 decreed from the Wikimedia foundation or through 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; they describe how the community works, and in general that remains fairly 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.

Discussion
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on consensus or policy, or would you like to take the test?

Just one question...
Q: In an RfA a candidate for adminship or bureaucratship shall have more support votes than oppose votes. What do they say that if an RfA or RfB is unsuccessful, it is probable that it has NOT reached consensus. How did they say that it has NOT reached consensus?
 * A: The closing 'crat will close the nomination as unsuccessful (consensus not reached) and then give reasons for their closure. See for example Requests for adminship/N5iln

Sir, I'm ready to take the test.

Test

 * 1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
 * A:Policies and guidelines are things that speak of the rules of Wikipedia, though they aren't firm. Say, the policy on vandalism. Their only difference is that policies don't change much, as the fifth pillar of Wikipedia states it. On the other side, an essay is a write-up of an editor about something. It may come with it some things editors should keep in mind, but they aren't official.
 * 1) Can Policy change?
 * A:Of course, as what I've said earlier, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia explains it: Policies tend to change over time.
 * 1) In your opinion, is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?
 * A:No. By the way, what are bureaucrat? A bureaucrat is a position on Wikipedia which allows a user to grant users adminship through an succesful RfA. One can also remove user rights and add them, aside from granting adminship. With my explanation, it's very clear that bureaucrats are just users who manage those who can be given user rights or who can be removed with user rights. It has not been stated in the policy that bureaucrats rule over Wikipedia, much like those dinosaurs who lived millions of years ago. They're not there to govern over the admins who may abuse their powers or those bureaucrats who keep on removing user rights just because one makes a mistake in blocking an IP. In short, bureaucrats are just users who have been given special rights and not VIPs who shall be given the priority. So, Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy.
 * Q: Bureaucracies have nothing to do with bureaucrats; can you please re-answer?
 * A:While Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute. Wikipedia may have the elements of bureaucracy, but it is not a government; rather, it's an encyclopedia. Also, there are policies and guidelines here at Wikipedia, and they are not like laws that are permanent. So, again and again, Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy.

Seventh Assignment: 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.

Discussion
Any questions or would you like to take the test?

Another set of questions
Q: Please check out the "Tmbox" template. When I was trying to see its parameters, it looked confusing. What parameter should I use when doing a task, say, placing text? (Since the text= parameter doesn't exist!)
 * A: I don't know what you mean when you say "the text= parameter doesn't exists", because it does! (If that is not what you mean, then I apologize.) Placing text with the tmbox is simple: just type and this is the result:

Sir, I'm already ready.

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:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Jedd Raynier/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) intend to pass this module!  (Template module)
 * A:

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

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

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

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

'I can't understand the test. Will I place the link to the revision, or what shall I do?
 * Ah, no. What you need to do is call the template I've created... I'll do the first one for you,  Worm TT( talk ) 08:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

'Now, there's another problem. If I place the same text as in answer 1, the text becomes the same in all the answers. Is that normal? Do I need to have different answers?'
 * Right.. Well, before we go further, perhaps this will help... Have a read, and if you're still confused, let me know.  Worm TT( talk ) 10:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can see you're struggling a bit with this test. The first three questions are all that really matter - you don't have to worry about question to pass the module. Now, the first one, I've done for you - it shows you how to call the template (by putting curly brackets around it -  ). The next ones, you need to be able to call it with a parameter. If you look at the template itself, you can see that there's two parameters - "name" and "intend". So, if I wanted to call it with the parameter "name", I would type   . Why don't you have another look?  Worm  TT( talk ) 12:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, sir.

Templates for Dummies (and you're not a dummy, so it should help)
Templates are scary but they're also extremely powerful, and so they're worth having as a module. They do involve a little bit of coding, but I'm sure you can manage a little bit of coding... just a little little tiny bit?

Right, well, now you're thinking about doing some coding, let's look at where they're used on wikipedia. Chances are, you've already used them. Anything you put in curly braces is a template. You may have only used them through copying and pasting, but there's a lot that you might have used. ,,  and  are very common ones, along with templated warnings.

What is a template?
So what is a template? Well, it's bit of "wikimarkup" (wikipedia code) which can be used on other pages. You have the option of "transcluding" it (putting the template in curly braces, ) or "substituting" it (putting it in curly braces, with the key word subst  ). If you transclude it to a page, any updates to the template will show on the page - and if you look at the wikimarkup (ie press edit), you will only ever see the curly braces and template name. If you substitute it, you will effectively be copying the template output to the page at the point you press save. Further updates to the template will be ignored, and you will be able to edit the markup on the page.

Where do I find templates?
Wikipedia has a specific namespace for templates. Any template which is used by many people should be held there, under "Template:", so for example the reflist template is held under Template:Reflist. If you use curly braces around reflist the clever wiki software looks at it and relises that it should look in the template namespace.

However, you can over-ride this, by telling it specifically which namespace you want to look in. For example, I could hold a template in my userspace - indeed I do at. The markup sees that it should be looking in the User namespace, and goes there.

How do I write templates?
The basics of templates is just the same as any other page. You can have a text only template, so that the same text can be used on many pages. But that's not where the real power comes in. The real power comes with parameters.

Un-named Parameters
The most basic parameter is (note the three curly braces - not two!). When you use in a template, it will accept the first un-named parameter passed in. Confused? How about an example?

Say I create a template called Template:Magic with the following code. "This magic trick was first performed by "

I could call it by putting and the output would be

"This magic trick was first performed by Worm"

You can go on to add other un-named parameters, and so on. And in this case Worm would be used everywhere a is shown.

Named Parameters
We also have named parameters. They are used the same way as unnamed parameters, but when called you have to say which parameter you are calling. I have a feeling you're looking confused again. Let's do another example.

Using the same template as I created about, Template:Magic I could change the parameter to "This magic trick was first performed by "

I would then call it by putting and the output would be

"This magic trick was first performed by Worm"

Useful for when you're calling many different parameters, say on an infobox.

Default values
Any parameter can have a default value, ie a value if no parameter is passed in. The syntax is.

Using the same template as I created about, Template:Magic I could add a default value... "This magic trick was first performed by "

I would then call it by putting and the output would be

"This magic trick was first performed by someone very clever"

includeonly and noinclude
There are two very useful tags that you can use to change how things appear. includeonly tags will only show when the template is placed. noinclude tags will only show on the template page. So, if you want something to change when it's placed, then the includeonly is useful (perhaps a locked timestamp). If you want something on the template page only, then the noinclude is useful (perhaps for template documentation).

Example? Yeah, I thought so. Let's go back to Template:Magic. If the code is (CURRENTTIME is a magic word, which returns the current time when called. Clever that) "This magic trick was first performed at  the current time"

You could go to Template:Magic and see

"This magic trick was first performed at the current time"

But if you were to call it, you'd get

"This magic trick was first performed at "

Other tricks
There's all sorts of other things you can do with templates, but it gets complicated from here on in. Have a look at Help:Magic words, you'll be amazed at what they can do. I'm going to teach you one more thing before I let you pass this module, and that's the #if: function. It's quite simple really - it works in the following format. where it checks if the parameter "test string" is empty.

So... let's try an example. Template:Magic again. I'm beginning to like it. "This magic trick was first performed by "

Here it checks if the parameter is null, and if it is it changes the text (the reason I've used  is so that when the parameter isn't passed in, it defaults to nothing. Otherwise it defaults to, as in the actual text - , which just gets confusing).

So you could call it by typing and you would get

"This magic trick was first performed by Worm long ago"

or you could call it with a time, and you would get

"This magic trick was first performed by Worm at 4pm"

Ta-da, you've just learnt templates!