User:WormTT/Adopt/MathewTownsend

Hi MathewTownsend, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substituted across a lesson for you and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Worm That Turned/Adopt, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. I haven't finished them all as yet - the red linked ones are likely to change, but feel free to read ahead - it might help. The tests might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Also we now have a talk area for us to use, away from the more public areas - if you would like to use it - it's at User Talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/MathewTownsend. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Five Pillars
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for. Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.
 * Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
 * Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
 * Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
 * Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
 * Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.

How articles should be written
The articles in Wikipedia are designed to represent the sum of human knowledge. Each article should be written from a neutral point of view – personal opinions such as right and wrong should never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.

To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.

Reliable sources
So what is a source? Wikipedia uses the word source for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic – so whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent.

A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception – so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable by default. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.

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

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

Questions?
Any questions or would you like to try the test?
 * I am having a little problem understanding the neutrality article Neutral point of view, as it gets into some subtle issues.
 * I'm have a problem over this in an animated TV episode article I'm reviewing for GA.
 * Anyway, I'll try the test. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, NPOV does have subtleties, especially when you start looking into getting the weight just right. Any advice I can give, let me know.
 * Well, it's an WP:UNDUE aspect, I think. And I do find myself getting flustered. So I would appreciate your advice as maybe I'm wrong.
 * The article was this version of Blame It on Lisa, a The Simpsons episode.
 * I thought the "Controversy section" was overemphasized per Manual of Style/Words to watch, and that there should be a "Critical reception" section.
 * The nominator did modify it some. But I still thought mentioning the US Constitution etc. is too much.
 * He did modify it a little more, but said the rest must stay in. No more modifying
 * Then I started checking the sources more thoroughly and didn't feel the emphasis given was proportionate to media coverage. The article now is Blame It on Lisa and the review is Talk:Blame It on Lisa/GA1.
 * Now someone else has stepped in who seems a little more amenable and perhaps it can be resolved. But do you think I was being unreasonable? Or taking my point too far?
 * At what point should I just compromise, even if I feel otherwise? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Five Pillars
This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There's not time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?
 * A - Just a brief search on Google leads me to believe that there is no new Ford Escort. Apparently it's no longer made, so I wouldn't be able to find a reliable source. So I couldn't add it to the article.
 * Good answer - Always a good idea to check stuff out.

2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
 * A - It would depend on how it was used in the article. Is the newspaper article on racism and the cartoon an example? I would look around and see if the cartoon is mentioned in reliable sources as an example of racism in that newspaper. At the very least, I would bring it it up on the talk page with sources supporting my view but probably I wouldn't want to get involved in something that is likely to be contentious. As far as adding it to the racism, I would not. There seem to be plenty of carefully chosen examples on that page already, and I wouldn't want to upset the balance in an article that has a history of edit warring.
 * There's nothing wrong with keeping away from contentious issues and discussion is the best thing.

3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?
 * A- No. I don't see its relevance to anything. Correlation is not causation.
 * All good

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * A - I've found the BBC news, in spite of their excellent reputation, can be biased on some subjects, (like insisting on calling Republic of the Union of Myanmar Burma) and The Troubles might be one of them. I would check very carefully that their info was supported by other sources. As far as ITV, I don't know anything about them. I have never seen them referenced. But I would look into using them, check them out as a source, if they presented potentially useful information.
 * Very sensible, happy with that.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- I don't have access to Facebook. Information from  their Facebook page falls under self published sources, I believe, and would be ok for facts about Ben and Jerry that are not controversial.
 * Exactly. Best not to use it generally, unless you can't find anything else.

6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
 * A- Not sure what a "forum official" is. Someone who screens community forum comments?  I don't think so. I can't think of any reliable info a "forum official" could provide, especially if the forum comments are screened, which they usually are.
 * Yep.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.hopsandpips.com being used in a beer related article?
 * A - I would not use it. It's "re-launching". If up, it would be a self-published commercial advert site and useful only for uncontroversial facts about the company.
 * Great timing. Nothing wrong with that answer though.

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
 * A -Only for info about Xerox that is not controversial. Facts about the company, only.
 * Yep.

9) Q - Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?
 * A - No. I believe that is one of the few statements that can be made without a source.
 * I do love this question. There's no right answer, but also no wrong answer. Besides the fact that you should try and source contentious information that's being added, and that's where the onus is. There's also two essays you may want to consider - WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and WP:You do need to cite that the sky is blue

Wikiquette
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.

I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
 * Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
 * Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~ . The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
 * Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, : . I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.


 * Don't forget to assume good faith
 * There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
 * Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
 * Watch out for common mistakes.
 * Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
 * Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.

Questions
Any questions?
 * Well, there's an awful lot of reading in those links (and the links they have), but I'll take the test and see how I do. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is, and if you do read everything on wikipedia it will take you forever. However, if you can get your head around some key ideas, most of wikipedia is common sense.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1) Position A?
 * A- -- #|Rod's Mate

2) Position B?
 * A- -- #|Rod

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- No, as it wouldn't be assuming good faith and he's not harming the encyclopedia. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Results
Perfect.

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.
 * Probably I won't know if I get it until I am faced with a knotty application example. With "Intellectual property" and "Derivative work" it seems especially difficult to discern where the lines are. And it doesn't seem like Wikipedia follows Attribution in it's use of images under Fair use, as I understand it.
 * Well, give me the questions!  MathewTownsend (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to know where you think Wikipedia is falling down regarding Attribution and Fair Use, if you've got a moment. Oh, and did you notice my comments at the talk page regarding the Good article review?

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- Well, not completely. Material from Wikipedia can't be used for commercial purposes. And there must be attribution for any copyrighted work, right? Wikipedia uses a lot of fair use, especially in images, but also quotes. I don't think these can be copied with impunity by a third party?
 * Actually, material from Wikipedia can be used for commercial purposes. Strange, I know, but as long as you are following the attribution, you can sell the images/text contained - it's all under the WP:CC-BY-SA license. Otherwise, you're right, we do use a lot of fair use - which is restricted for it's use by the third party, that's where we'd fall down regarding being free. Interestingly, the German Wikipedia is much more strict and does not allow fair use, so they comply much closer with being free.

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- Any picture I have taken myself that is not of something that is copyrighted; any picture that is licensed under the correct Creative Commons license; any picture that I have received written permission from the creator with an (OTRES ticket); any picture that I have modified enough that it can be considered Derivative work; any picture that is in the public domain.
 * I didn't think that you could upload a derivative work to commons, but I wasn't sure so I did double check. You can't. However, all the others are acceptable - good job.

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- I believe so, if the conditions in the licenses are followed.
 * This is one of the most mean questions I set, and I always feel guilty as people fall down every time. Commons isn't commercial, but it requires images to be free use (at least WP:CC-BY-SA), which means that people can use them for commercial purposes. In other words, that license isn't good enough.

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- Well, the Derivative work issue seems to be bogged down in case law; possibly a user could alter the composite of album covers enough so that his composition contained "non-trivial, original features".
 * It's true, it is bogged down in case law, and the stance that WP takes is that it's a no-no (unless the original work was PD).

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- Press images are almost always copyrighted. Since the Pope is a living person, theoretically anyone could take a photo of him.
 * Yep

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Possibly, if you could fulfill the conditions under fair use and use the image appropriately in an article about that prisoner in a way that adds value to the article's subject.
 * Very good answer, what I want to see here is that you've been thinking about the question. I think that if this case were to come up, there'd be a lot of discussion on WP - therefore there is no right answer.

Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. What do you do? You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA
 * A- I think that would be considered Copyright infringement and should be removed. Or rewritten in original wording and sourced to the company website.
 * Yep

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- Well, the article history is lost (I believe, perhaps it is retrievable in some way by admins who know how to do it). A regular move would preserve the article history and would be more transparent and would preserve "credit" to those editors who wrote it.
 * Exactly

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:Achtung Baby.png
 * Good job

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Results
It's rare that I have a student pay enough attention to actually get this test done as well as you did. Well done. I'll get another lesson put up for you as soon as I can. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 22:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious. I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.

Simple Resolution
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.

Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.

Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Rerverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editor's argument and respond to that.

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

Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia dispute resolution process
If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution

Assistance
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.

Third opinion
You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP

Mediation
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). There's also WP:DRN which is fairly informal but focuses more on content disputes. The editors involved with all of these processes specialise 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 that you can get some help.

Remember: you could be wrong!
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.

Any questions?
I had a really bad experience soon after registering. An editor gave me many (like 20-30) 3-RR warnings and reported me to three noticeboards in one day. All his complaints against me were ruled invalid. But that didn't stop him from constantly warning me. Later, another editor posted to me that the editor was a known sockpuppet and had been stopped. But I had already unwatched all pages that editor was interested in, and stopped responding to his posts on my page, and stopped all vandal reverts. This isn't a question, but i doubt I will engage in anything controversial because of that experience.

Dispute resolution
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A- If someone reverts my edit, I would attempt to discuss it with him. If I have already attempted, I would leave the article and leave the issue. I know from experience that there is no use in discussing further. And the various help boards do not enforce their opinions, so their decisions are not useful in terms of dealing with a specific editor who chooses to disregard them.
 * Well, that's a pity. As Wikipedia operates on consensus, a group with strong arguments against a single editors trying to promote a point of view will exhibit consensus, and if that POV pusher carries on, there is likely to be some sort enforcement. But if you'd prefer to keep to non-controversial areas, you are welcome to :) If you do end up with troubles, let me know, I'll see if I can comment - that's not to say I'll instantly agree with you but may well be able to faciliate a compromise.

2) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!
 * A- No one, as reverts are not a way of proceeding. The only time I have intentionally reverted is when it is clear vandalism. I don't think anything is accomplished by reverting a good faith edit without a good explanation. And no point in doing it again, if is isn't obvious vandalism. And, as I understand it, you can't revert more than twice in a 24-hour period, regardless of the reason or you can be blocked.
 * You're right on all counts except the WP:3RR bit. 3 reverts is the bright line, if you go over it, you're likely to be be blocked. However, there are some exceptions listed at that policy - and reverting blatent vandalism is one such exception.

3) What is vandalism?
 * A- Intentionally inserting nonsense or intentionally inaccurate information into an article, e.g. my last revert Or blanking a page, or other behaviors meant to compromise the integrity of wikipedia.
 * Exactly. Intentionally harming the encyclopedia.

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A- editor assistance is a place where editors can ask for informal, non binding advice or feedback on simple issues.


 * I have never tried (in fact never hear of) third opinion. I just looked at it and it's very confusing. As far as I could figure out, there were only two requests there that seemed to drag on and on with no resolution. It's unclear to me if this is constructive.


 * At request for comment, an editor or group of editors can request input from the community on an editor or issue. It is non binding.
 * Very good. When an RfC is closed, it's closed either with consensus or not. If there is consensus (and that doesn't mean unanimity) then that is binding (keeping in mind that consensus can change. WP:3O is designed to get another editor in, so two people polar opposite opinions aren't just staring each other down.

Deletion Policies
While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion.

Wikipedia has three methods to delete pages. The first, and by far fastest, is the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. These criteria depict what content absolutely cannot be kept on Wikipedia for whatever reason and must be removed immediately. The most commonly used ones are as follows:
 * General criteria 1 (G1) or G2 - Patent Nonsense and/or Test pages. Commonly created by new accounts, these have no meaningful purpose at all. Mark these pages with the templates db-nonsense or db-test.
 * G3 - Vandalism. Obvious junk that you can understand (and so isn't nonsense) but obviously isn't intended to be the least bit helpful. This includes redirects that get made as a result of someone moving pages around disruptively. Mark these with db-vandalism
 * G4 - Recreation of deleted material. If a page is deleted through an XfD debate (see below) and it gets re-created essentially identically to the previous version, it can be speedied under G4. This does not apply to pages deleted under any other method (although another speedy criteria may fit and can be used), or pages that have been "userfyed" (see below). Tag these with db-repost
 * G10 - Attacks. If a page is created with the apparently singular purpose of attacking someone, it's a candidate for deletion. Mark these with db-attack.
 * G11 - Advertising. If a page is so blatantly advertising (for anything, even a person) that it really doesn't serve any other purpose at all, it can be deleted. db-ad
 * G12 - Copyright violations, or "copyvio"''. If a page meets ALL of these criteria, it should be deleted immediately for GFDL compliance. Tag these with
 * Direct copy of a non-GFDL-compatible website
 * No non-copyrighted content in history
 * All copyvio content added at once by one user
 * No assertion of permission or fair use, or that content is public domain or freely available.

Whenever you mark a page for speedy deletion, it's usually nice to notify the author. Each of the speedy deletion tags shows the proper warning to use - just copy that code and paste it on their user talk page. You are not required to do this, but it usually helps alleviate some confusion on the part of the author.
 * Article criteria 1 or 3 (A1 or A3) - Little to no context OR no content. For articles that provide no useful information about the subject, are completely empty, or consist only of links elsewhere. Note that an article can be as short as a single sentence but still qualify as a stub. Mark with db-empty.
 * A7 - Non-notable subject. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not establish why it is notable. If this is somewhat controversial, consider another deletion method. Mark with db-bio, db-corp, db-band, or db-web.

If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author,.

Finally, the XfD processes (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allow users to debate on the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what is to become of it. These are not votes - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are considered towards the result of the debate. The template at right shows all the different types of deletion debates. The most frequently used is AfD, Articles for Deletion. Your nomination earlier today should have gone there. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures.

Before anything is deleted, though, one should always check to see if there is any alternative. There are a wide range of cleanup templates that can be used to indicate an article needs attention (templates which we'll cover in more detail later, I'll just give you the link for now). One could always take care of the cleanup themselves. It's also possible there is usable content in the article that can be merged elsewhere, or it's just under the wrong title and needs to be moved. Wikipedia's purpose is to include as much information as possible, so deletion should always be a last resort.

Questions
Any questions or would you like to try the "Test"
 * When you say "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." - do you mean where I put a red link misspelled category for deletion? Where "shore" was spelled "shoere", I think? ok, I'd have thought that was an obvious delete, especially since the correctly spelled category existed.  MathewTownsend (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My fault - "Your nomination earlier today" was meant for someone else, and I never removed it, just been using the same lesson over and over. Sorry! You didn't do anything wrong.

Deletion
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A I would use a WP:PROD if I thought it was an uncontroversial request; if the article was on a subject where there might possibly be contention I would use WP:AfD, or if my PROD was contested but the article not improved with reliable sources.
 * Sounds great.

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 "Mary Moore lives next door to me and she is a great singer." (no citations or indications of notability)
 * Very good. The threshold for A7 isn't actually notability or citiations, it's "credible indication of importance" - meaning if it hasn't even hinted at something important the person has done, it's A7-able, which your example matches.

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

3)First
 * A db-a1, db-nocontext, or db-short
 * Sounds good to me. You could also go for an A7 (even dual tag it), but I'm happy with that

4)Second
 * A WP:AfD as the name does come up on Google and there may be citations somewhere that could be used to source the article.
 * You could do. Or even use a WP:BLPPROD to force the article creator to prove it.

5)Third
 * A db-nonsense or db-test
 * Right

6)Fourth
 * A I would do nothing here, except add a refimprove and or point out on the talk page that the sources need to pass the reliable sources criteria.
 * Sounds good to me.

7)Fifth
 * A I think db-hoax
 * I'd probably go A1 here - no indication of importance... Hoax is generally used for articles that appear encyclopedic but are hoaxes.

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.

Questions
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?

Policy
1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
 * A A policy is to be adhered to all, or almost all of the time. (Except when IAR is employed, that allows policy to be leavened with common sense.) A guideline is to be adhered to most of the time, unless there is a good reason not to, but is somewhat more flexible than a policy. An essay is the point of view of one or more editors that can embody community wisdom but has no binding effect.


 * However, there is The difference between policies, guidelines and essays which rather confuses the issue. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you've got it to me.

2) Can Policy change?
 * A Yes, as it is subject to changes in community consensus, except when it embodies WMF policies.
 * Yep. And the WMF policy should be very rare.

3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?
 * A No. In reality there are few firm rules or procedures, and there is much unregulated behavior and idiosyncratic ways of doing things. There is much rude behavior, vulgarities, trashing of other editors, name calling and harassing, etc. There's no set way to get help if you are a new editor.
 * Good answer

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.
 * I don't really "get" this. For example, why is a number needed, as it doesn't seem to matter what number is added? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, well, I've got another lesson that I wrote at a more fundamental level, you may have a little more luck getting through the mental block. If it still makes no sense, let me know...

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!

This magic trick was first performed by "This magic trick was first performed by " - copied from yours above - had to leave out the rest of you template as it was unclear how to proceed.
 * Doesn't seem to work (I've tried all sorts of variations and this is the least worst:
 * "This magic trick was first performed by "

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


 * Right, now the reason that none of them worked is that the template above doesn't exist, I made it up. However... I've create that template under User:WormTT/Magic. Templates only work when you call them... So you can call it as below.


 * Type to get
 * Type to get
 * Does that make any more sense?  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, here goes:
 * So I would have to create the template for ?
 * And then ? But (time=3pm) doesn't show up.
 * - copied word-for-word from your template.

So far, not one single template has worked for me, except the ones I have copied directly from you - which only works if I were you! There's some major element I'm missing.

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You could create a template at User:MathewTownsend/Magic/, yes. Click on the red link, and create it. Then, once it is created, it will be pulled across to this page because of your curly braces - - above. To pass a parameter, you need to use a pipe - | - which you have for the "time=3pm" above. However, you've used a slash - / - before your name, which won't work. You are getting there. You managed to call the User:WormTT/Magic template!   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but now when you type it says ... if you want to start parameterising, try putting a  in the User:MathewTownsend/Magic/ page.   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I put the on the page User:MathewTownsend/Magic/. All that's there is (besides what I put there before) is !  MathewTownsend (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, so you have. Well, yes, on that page, all you see is . But when you call the template with a parameter, for example,, it suddenly looks like...  - the Oogah Boogah turns up wherever you have a  in your template page, does that make sense?   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Do you fancy calling your test template below? Try typing

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/MathewTownsend/Template. It's a template! Have a look at it now. Depending on how you call it, different things will happen. So I'd like you to call the template so that you get the correct result. No using subst, just use the parameters of your nice new template.

1) I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
 * A:I need something to copy or I don't know how to do this.
 * As I said just above... try typing ...


 * I intend (Template module)
 * Copied the template and kept removing things until it worked. Don't understand how. "if" statements definitely screw things up, so I removed them.

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

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

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

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


 * I'd suggest we move on - it's a bit technical and sometimes people's brains just don't work in a templates based way. I like to keep the lesson in, because it's such a powerful tool, but it's not necessary to participate in Wikipedia. For the record, the answers to the first 3 questions are

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

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

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

But don't worry too much about it. Let's move on to the next lesson, shall we? WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd like another lesson. (I didn't get that I was supposed to use your template, I guess - not sure.)  MathewTownsend (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that that's over with, go do your task. Have fun! (By the way, please ignore new pages, indicated by a bold "N" on the log entry.)
 * Diff 1: [*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inbreeding&curid=54743&diff=480425187&oldid=480305613] Why you think this is vandalism: it replaces NPOV wording (inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected) with potentially offensive wording (Boring family of west virginia has the highest percentage of inbreds in America}.
 * Diff 2: Why you think this is vandalism: It adds to "For culinary use, safflower oil compares favorably with other vegetable oils with its high smoke point and low saturated fat content." the words "t.u r awesome."
 * Diff 3: Why you think this is vandalism: It adds to the article content the words "Hi!!!! How are you???"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions
Not much of a test this time, because there's so much to read... but let me know when you are ready :)
 * I have Twinkle and have occasionally reverted edits. And I have occasionally left a warning on the user's page. Since I was the victim of a user that turned out to be banned, who reverted me constantly, I'm pretty conservative in choosing what to revert. I'd rather let those who are more sophisticated to engage in the heavy vandalism reverts. I think I'm ready.   MathewTownsend (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, they're all reasonable shots at vandalism. "Hi how are you" is more of a test edit which should be dealt with accordingly, but none were designed to help the encyclopedia. Let's hit the test.

Vandalism
Q1) How would you define vandalism?
 * A: an edit which is made to deliberately attempt to harm the encyclopedia
 * The word deliberate is essential - but that's the size of it.

Q2) We currently have 4 levels of warnings, have a look at them if you like 1, 2,3,4 - along with an only warning. Do you think we need 4 levels?
 * A: The lowest warning should be used in assuming good faith. Then the warnings escalate if the editor continues to insert vandalism or remove correct edits. I think that for an admin to block an editor, they usually have to have been warned three times. (Unfortunately, I don't know what those warnings actually say, as clicking on the template above just show the templates and not the wording.)
 * I'll be marking this in the morning, but I thought I'd point out that if you click on the links, they do show what they say - it's the text above the green background. Generally, it has a symbol next to it.
 * For some cases we can block on sight, others multiple warnings are useful. I'd say they're worth it, have a read of what they say at some point.

Q3) Does an admin need all 4 levels to block? How many do you think they need? How many should you have gone through before going to WP:AIV
 * A: I believe that blatant vandalism can just be given the final warning ( vandalism4 ). I believe that after three warnings plus the final warning, the next step is WP:AIV.
 * In truth, it doesn't really matter - as long as the editor clearly knows that they're doing is wrong.

Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning?
 * A: I personally use the "only" warning when I see that the editor's page is full of past warnings. But I understand that if an editor is clearly vandalizing, a level 4 may be used.
 * It depends largely on the level of vandalism - if it's egregious then an only warning is sensible. Also if they've just come off a block for the same behaviour.

Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings?
 * A: I believe that it is allowed for vandals to remove warnings.
 * Indeed it is.

Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism?
 * A: Copyright violations harm the encyclopedia. However, many editors don't understand that, so many copyright violations are not done to "deliberately" harm. In most cases the editor needs a mild warning (if any formal warning) and education regarding wikipedia rules about copyrights. Only if the editor continued repeatedly to add copyvio could it be considered vandalism or disruptive editing.
 * Yep

Q7) The vast majority of vandalism comes from IP editors... but the majority of good edits are also made by IP editors. Should wikipedia require registration?
 * A: Yes, for many editors its the bother to have to remember a user name and password, especially if they don't edit regularly. I can understand that, so  I take the side of allowing IPs to edit. Often a reader encounters something in an article that could be fixed, but they're not going to register just to fix it most likely.  MathewTownsend (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good answer. It's important to remember that the vast majority of edits are made by IPs, so whilst they are the ones who do the most harm, they also do the most good.

Results
Very good job. I'll put the next lesson up in an hour or so. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup

 * WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do. As an example, I had a go at the . When I got there, there were 400. I chipped away at them at about 10 per day, many were no longer contradictory or mis-tagged. They're now at around 70, a much more respectable number. Every little helps. I cannot stress this enough.

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

Questions
Think there's stuff their you can do? Are you ready for the final exam? I have to warn you, some of these will be involved in the practical test... oh yes, there's a practical test. ;)
 * yes, but let me show you some of what I've done. I have two dyks User:MathewTownsend/dyk
 * I've created 13 (very small) articles: User:MathewTownsend/Articles
 * I've saved one article from deletion by finding sources for it and voting to "keep": Articles for deletion/Heralds of Harmony
 * I've reviewed 70 some GARs: User:MathewTownsend/GA reviews. However, I'm a little leary of GAR at present because of a couple of bad experiences. (I need to get over that fright.)
 * I've been a regular contributor of the Signpost.
 * and I have three good articles: High Five Interchange, Greenville Bridge, Benjamin G. Humphreys Bridge.

ok, onward and upward! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed you have - you've done an awful lot here, I hope you've got a little bit out of my adoption course too. If you still fancy taking it, the final test is here  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * apologies for sticking my nose in here (and congratulations Mathew!!), but I have to wonder how many "admins" could pass that test Worm. Could be interesting to find out. — Ched : ?  03:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've wondered that myself a few times. Not just admins, but many editors who consider themselves upstanding members of the community. Having said that, most people should be able to, if they read the course and think about the questions a bit :)  Worm TT( talk ) 07:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)