User:WormTT/Adopt/Ryan Vesey

Hi Ryan Vesey, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substitute across the first 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/Ryan Vesey. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:29, 21 June 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 notable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia - so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue!

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

Questions?
Any questions or would you like to try the test?
 * I do have one question based on WP:USERG. In the past, when I have found an unreferenced article, I have often used IMDB or other user generated sources in my effort to source the material in the article.  I usually use this as a last resort and rarely, if ever, add new information based on the website.  What are your thoughts on using a questionable source as a last resort to source information added by someone else in an article?  My specific example comes from Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary) where I have occasionally used this as a source.  Once you respond to this, I will be ready to take the test. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can understand why you'd want to use a WP:USERG as a last resort, and it is certainly tempting. But, since there is no fact checking, no editorial overview, effectively person who wrote the article could write whatever they want, with absolutely no consquence. Wikipedia can't be using sources like that, even as a last resort. There are some exceptions, if it is identifyable to an expert in the field and so on, but even then it's not the best to use. As to your example, that source wouldn't be acceptable but it does include a bibliograph, which would allow you to confirm what is written. It might take a little more work, but hey, no one said writing Wikipedia articles was easy!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:54, 22 June 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 -No, this fails to meet the requirements of verifiability. "I heard it through the grapevine" is not a valid source.

2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
 * A - No, there are multiple problems with both of these instances. First, this fails to meet the neutrality requirements of Wikipedia.  Second, it seems that the specific cartoon would not be notable enough to be worth of mention in the article about the newspaper and in a check of the Racism article, there is no place for the specific cartoon on that article.  The contemporary section of the page includes much more large scale events. (Although I think the page needs a lot of cleanup anyways)

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- Well, you should be able to obviously conclude that eating butternut squash makes you go bald and add this to every page from baldness to Squash (plant) to Original Research. (Humor)  In reality though, this seems to be a very good example of why Wikipedia does not allow original research.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * A - I would certainly consider it a reliable source, just as I cannot discount Fox News Channel as a reliable source on anything related to America or politics; however, I would certainly check for neutrality. As a British news channel, writers will  obviously have a biased opinion on the subject of The Troubles, whether they plan to or not.  Still, as it is a historic event, I believe that the bias would be minimal and at least reflect the majority viewpoint.  As a source of ITV, I still would not discount it, but would probably use it for only fact related things.  i.e. dates, management, etc.  I would not use it as a source on the credibility or usefulness of ITV.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- No, this is a self published source and Facebook is often a mirror site of Wikipedia.

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- I never use forum posts as a reliable source. I'm sure there is something at WP:RS stating that this is inappropriate.  For my own reasons, forum posts are very subjective and the identity of the poster cannot be verified.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.hopsandpips.com being used in a beer related article?
 * A - This one is actually slightly hard for me. I would not use it as an external link because it is a promotional web page, but this page could be used to source an example of how beer is made.  Similarily, this page could be used in a wikipedia article describing beers.  That being said, I would make every attempt to find a better article if I could

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
 * A - No, as long as it is not the bulk of the history section on the Wikipedia page.

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 - This would be reverted as vandalism as it is common knowledge that the sky is blue. I read something that supported my statement once.

Results
Very good. You certainly seem to understand sourcing, I'm pleased to say. Many of your answers would be what I consider "perfect", and the only one I would even comment on is number 9, which I should mention that two points. Firstly, Ancient Greeks called the sky bronze, as they had no word for blue (Homer describes it as such, probably meaning dazzling bright). Secondly, and more importantly, it depends on the situation. If the other editor is adding something to the article, then he needs to source it. If he's removing something from the article, then it's up to you to either get consensus that it's common knowledge or to find a source. It shouldn't be hard in this case, but don't go assuming things are common knowledge... ;)

Finally, you're the first person to subst their own test over! Made me chuckle. I don't mind you doing it though, just mind out when we come to the vandalism lesson. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment on number 9, per WP:MINREF it appears that something should be sourced if it

Since it has been challenged I would probably cite it with a source on Rayleigh Scattering. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is a direct quotation
 * 2) Has been challenged
 * 3) Might be challenged
 * 4) Has been removed
 * I did some more research and found these two essays: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and You do need to cite that the sky is blue. Personally, I still don't think you need to.  While it is not specifically addresses as something that does not need citations in Common knowledge, I believe it is similar enough to the examples to work. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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

Questions
Any questions? I have no questions on this subject, it is a topic I have become very familiar with. There is one instance where I did not assume good faith and that was here. I did not have enough room in the edit summary to fully explain the attack page, but it described the homosexuality of the person it referred to and I believed that GSA was added to the school's page as a further part of that attack. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did notice that on the avoiding common mistakes page there was a link to do a google search of Wikipedia. Do you know how to set up google to do that?  Personally I would type "site:en.wikipedia.org" before my search, but the link in the article showed two buttons where you could choose to search the web or to search wikipedia. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At least you were aware that you weren't assuming good faith, and why. Remember "AGF is not a suicide pact", if it's clear that the user is not acting in good faith, then don't assume it. But try to extend the AGF as far as you can. As for searching with google, you want "site:en.wikipedia.org" AFTER your search (say "Doom Bar site:en.wikipedia.org"), or indeed you can just click on the link provided and it's set up for you. (Typing in that search box will only return results from wikipedia). Hope that answers those questions! Here's the test.

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- He is replying to Rod's Mate's comment of Like what

2) Position B?
 * A- He is replying to Rod's comment of What's the best car in the world?
 * Unfortunately, these users would need to be warned for using the talk page as a forum.

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, assuming the template changes are not nonconstructive and do not coincide with similar nonconstructive edits by another user. I do not know how experienced the person behind the computer is.  If we assumed every competent new editor was a sockpuppet, we would lose a lot of really good editors really fast.  That is the danger in reporting a user as a sockpuppet.  If they are not a sockpuppet, but are forced to go through the ordeals, the finger pointing, the block, the defamation of character, etc., they are very likely to discontinue adding valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Results
Ideal, couldn't have put it better myself.

Copyright on a free Wiki
'''This is probably the most important lesson I'll give, because this is the only one where failure to adhere exactly according to policy can and will result in a block. Pay attention.'''

Wikipedia is as the slogan says, "The Free Encyclopedia". Unfortunately, this causes some problems when we use other materials that aren't so free, and other problems when we'd like to do something but really can't. Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, or GFDL. This is a copyleft license that allows for the free distribution of content under certain conditions. The main terms of this license are as follows: There are other terms to the license, but those are the most important for what is done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia displays a copy of the license, which is fully protected under the authority of the Wikimedia office. Whenever we make an edit, that edit is logged in the page's edit history, as well as your contributions. When a page is deleted, contributions to that page are hidden, but are still visible to administrators or "sysops". Certain page revisions may also be hidden from public view in the event of extreme circumstances, but are still visible to those with the authority to remove them for GFDL compliance.
 * Anything licensed under the GFDL must display a copy of the license (Wikipedia's is at the link I just gave you).
 * Any "derivative works", or works based on something licensed under the GFDL, must be licensed under GFDL.
 * Content licensed under the GFDL may be modified, but must include a history of all changes and who made them when.
 * All content licensed under the GFDL must be freely available or available under "fair use".

Unfortunately, the GFDL does have some limit on what we can do. When merging pages, we cannot delete the page that is now empty, even if it serves little useful purpose even as a redirect. The contributions to that page, which provided the information that was merged out, must be kept logged so that people know where it came from and what changes were made when. The Mediawiki software is designed to be GFDL compatible. (As a side note, the software itself is available under a similar license, the GPL.) The most common issue, and the one that most frequently results in blocks, is copyright. Any registered user can upload an image or media file. If they created the image, they can license it under a free license such as the GFDL or a Creative Commons license, or release it into the public domain (Although if you use any of those options, it's recommended to upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons instead so any language Wiki can use it.)

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 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.

For a full description of the policies and guidelines concerning fair use, you should read (and commit to memory :-P) the page at WP:FU. Rest assured that you will never forget the name of that shortcut. Got your head around all that? Well lets move away from images - but we're not done!

Plagiarism
Copyright violations do not only appear on images, they can appear in text too. Even if the source text is wholly in the public domain, you can't just copy it without falling foul of plagiarism. As I'm sure you're pretty frazzled at the moment, I'm just going to say don't copy and paste text! Write it in your own words and make sure you cite your source.

Questions?
Any questions? It's a heck of a topic, so feel free to ask "why" to anything, and I will do my best to explain. Let me know when you are ready for the test.

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A-Yes, under the standpoint that it is a "free encyclopedia" that everyone can edit. The information on the encyclopedia is not copyrighted and is free to be used by anyone.
 * Good answer, though there is much non-free content, it is all strictly monitored and so I would still consider it a free encyclopedia.

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- Only if it is a completely free use, usually if you have taken the picture or created the image yourself. There are other examples of free use, i.e. this image was uploaded with consent from the author and attribution was given.
 * Exactly.

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- I am not completely positive on this one. When you read the full text of the license here it shows that the music is still copyrighted.  While reading the information on the link provided, it seemed like it was a free use license.  To make sure, I took another look at WP:FU.  The first thing I noticed was that free content is "defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially" (Emphasis in the original; however, I removed some in the quotes)  This image is a non-free use image and can't be uploaded to commons.
 * I normally catch people on this. Yes, commons needs to accept commercial application, so a non-commercial license is too restrictive. Good job.

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- Yes; however, attribution must be given to the designers of the Beatles album covers.
 * And there's the trip up. You're not far wrong, but attribution isn't sufficient as the album covers are under copyright. We couldn't host it on Wikipedia as it fails WP:NFCC - minimal usage.

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- No, it is possible for you to get your own image of the pope, just like your example about the comedian/speaker.
 * Yep.

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Yes, you are unable to take a picture of the prisoner yourself so there is no free alternative.
 * This is an interesting debate. There are people who would argue that it is possible just not easy. Can you not write to the prisoner and ask for one? write to his family? write to the person who took the non-free image? There's options out there.

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 would propose the page for speedy deletion per CSD-G12. If there was free content on the page I would replace all of the copied information with
 * Sounds good

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- Yes, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, if non-free content were copied into the encyclopedia, we would essentially be "stealing" the non-free content and making it free.
 * I was referring to moving from one article to another using cut and paste, rather than the move button - any thoughts on that?

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:Sporcle.gif
 * Yep

Post test comments- The only one I am really unsure about now is number 4, I began reading this page yesterday which is why I believed I was ready to take the test.

Results
Aha! Finally managed to trip you up! :D You're right, I don't appear to mention Commons enough in this lesson, I think it needs a bit of a re-write to be honest, it's taken from another adoption school and tweaked, but I'm much happier with my beginners lesson. Anyway, you've done very well, but could you give me a little more detail on question 8? WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 02:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Woops, I read number 8 wrong. Personally, I think that since everything on Wikipedia is free content and written by volunteers, attribution should not matter at all.  But those are my own views and are contrary to policy.  The problems with a cut and paste move occur because attribution is not maintained to the original author.
 * In reference to number 4, what if the image were used in the page The Beatles discography? Currently, no album covers are displayed on the page, but if there were, there could be an image of each cover.  That is at least 12 non-free images.  The users combination of images would then be appropriate in place of all twelve, right?  Just trying to find a way to un-trip myself up Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bingo on number 8. And on number 4, yes, I do see your argument and so did many people at Files for deletion/2008 October 23 - you might even see one of my very early edits with my first sig in there. however can you honestly say that having every image on the discography is required? what does it add, given that we have them on the individual articles.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 03:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just a little bit of empathy there, I'd feel bad for the editor who created the amalgamation of images. I also find it similar to the prominent nairs image found on Nair.  I grabbed a random image from that page File:C V Devan Nair.jpg and noticed that it is a non-free image.  In fact, the page of the image does not even include Nair as one of the pages that the image is contained on. (ok that was really wordy and confusing)  That is probably because it is a transclusion from Template:Prominent Nairs.  Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As horrible as it is for the editor who created the image, it's also horrible for the person who created the image in the first place, only to have it used on a site as large as Wikipedia without permission. There's two sides to every coin. And as for that image... I'm not happy about that. Not happy at all. I think I'm going to do a little investigation. Good find.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 03:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Investigation done. it's fine ;) File:Nair Collage.PNG are all images from commons. The template pushes them through to the articles, cleverly, but the image that you point to isn't in the collage...  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 03:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * .....and while writing this I just did some more research. I looked at the wrong image, File:Nair Collage.PNG here is where you should go and it appears that everything is from commons.  After all of this I think I understand copyrighted material much better, ready for the next lesson? Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). The editors at each specialise in sorting debates.

Request for Comment
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified.

Arbitration
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.

Reports
If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards 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?
Comment before I start. I think this is a reason that the Dispute Resolution lesson will be very important for me. It all stemmed from this diff. It happened to be that he hit a nerve that I didn't really appreciate. I wasn't well versed in dispute resolution and turned to a couple of admins, who all gave me rather unhelpful responses. Then I did this, this, this, and this. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read it all when you asked about adoption on the WP:ADOPT page. I must say that so far I've been very impressed with how well versed in policy you seem, so I'm hope you won't get quite so upset again! I do have to warn you though... I think it's pretty unlikely you will be president. *ducks*  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 04:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A-When there is a topic that is controversial, you should make an edit, adding/removing only one potentially controversial thing at a time. If someone disagrees with your edit, they will revert it.  You should then bring the edit to the talk page to discuss it.  Often, I have seen this process not work, because someone will not come to the talk page.  Still, I have had personal instances where this has worked (before I knew it existed).  In my case it was more of a Bold, revert, bold, revert, discuss.  I believed that in using a more elaborate edit summary on my second bold edit I didn't need to go to the talk page right away, but I will in the future.

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-I don't really care who wins because Wikipedia loses. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

3) What is vandalism?
 * A- Vandalism is anything that is meant to intentionally hurt the encyclopedia.

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A-Editor assistance focuses more on an individual editor. It is less about the content of the dispute, and more about the editor requesting assistance.  You may seek editor assistance to find out if you are taking the correct course of action.  A third opinion is an option where two users who have a dispute seek additional comments from a third editor0.  I am now watching WP:3O in hopes that I can assist editors at some point.  Request for comment is similar to editor assistance; however, rather than one editor offering their opinion, it opens up the conversation to multiple editors. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Results
That's good enough for me.

I'm afraid I'm a little shattered, so I won't be able transclude the next lesson on deletion. Feel free to do it if you like :) I'll do it some time tomorrow or Monday otherwise.
 * I had to look up shattered, as I wasn't completely familiar with the slang. I was fairly certain it meant tired, given our conversation earlier, but had a slight thought that it might mean drunk. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, shattered as in tired. I'd been up for something like 21 hours at that point with little sleep the night before, so I went to bed :D

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"

Deletion
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
 * A I often use PROD's when an article fails as a speedy deletion candidate for not completely meeting the criteria. Other instances include articles that make a statement of notability, but are not actually notable.  If I believe someone would have a legitimate reason to oppose a deletion, I should take it to AFD.

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 Well an easy one would be if I created an article for my cat. My cat is non-notable and does not deserve an article.  Another good example would be if an article was created about a singer.  This article could only include information about the fact that the person sings.  If it stated that they are notable because they won a talent show then A7 cannot be used, even though they would probably be found to be non-notable in a PROD or AFD.

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

3)First
 * A I am a fan of duel tagging, and would tag this as A7 as it makes no claim to notability and A1 as the information about Danielle Spross is not informative.

4)Second
 * A I think there is a good chance that this article would be notable and deserving of a Wikipedia page. I would try to source this page and improve it somewhat.  If I could not find a source or some days when I fell lazy I would tag it with a PROD BLP template.  In that event, the article would either be deleted for noncompliance with WP:BLP or an interested editor would add some references.

5)Third
 * A G1

6)Fourth
 * A PROD, I can't even understand what this is talking about; however, it doesn't appear to meet any criteria for speedy deletion. I even checked the rest of the criteria at WP:CSD

7)Fifth
 * A I would apply A7 to this one and I believe it would depend on the administrator who reviewed it as to whether it passes or not. It does stat that he was known throughout the world.  I would PROD the article immediately if the speedy was declined.

Results
I intentionally put borderline cases on here, and so duel tagging is clearly a good solution. I agree with your answers in general, I think the second case was actually non-notable when I was looking, so a PROD BLP is a good solution. The fourth, I would either merge or set up as a stub, but at least you didn't speedy it. Prod is reasonable, if anyone disagrees then you can take it to AFD. On your final one, I'd go for A1 if I'm honest, known throughout the world for what?

Anyway, I'm happy with all your answers, and consider that a good pass.

Consensus
Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight.

Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up.

There are a couple of exceptions to consensus. Anything decree from Wikimedia foundation or WP:Office actions must be adhered too. Although these are rare, it's worth keeping in mind. Some of the things passed down in the past is that care must be taken over biographies of living people and copyright violations.

Community
The community is anyone who writes and edits Wikipedia. This includes you, me and any user who clicks that little edit button. They need not be registered, which is why you see IP editors. Although some registered editors treat IPs like second-class citizens, there is no reason they should be. I've seen a few reports that show that the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by IP editors. It does mean that the vast majority of vandalism is also caused by IP editors, hence the disillusionment. I'll get onto vandalism in a separate lesson, so don't worry too much about that now.

Policy and guidelines
Everything we do in wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively constant at the policy level.

Ignore all rules
What? Is this really right? Well, what the ignore all rules policy says is "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." My personal interpretation is that this a catchall to remind us that we're not in a bureaucracy, that the important thing is the encyclopedia. I've never had to implement it personally, but I do keep it in mind.

Questions
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?
 * No questions. I didn't know that !vote meant not a vote.  I was always confused as to why they would call it a vote when it wasn't supposed to be a vote, now I understand.  (Although if you look at RFA, !votes are often just votes)

Policy
1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
 * A A policy is something that all Wikipedians are expected to adhere to; although, ignore all rules creates an exception to his. Guidelines are similar in that they should be followed more than they are not followed and are also supported by consensus; however, they are able to be ignored in more circumstances than policies.  Essays can be the viewpoints of one or many editors; however, they have never reached consensus.  For example, earlier I pointed out two opposing essays, You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and You do need to cite that the sky is blue. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

2) Can Policy change?
 * A Yes, policies reflect consensus and consensus can change. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?
 * A Yes; however, it depends on how you look at it. If you look at the page Bureaucracy you notice that a bureaucracy's purpose is to "successfully implement the actions of an organization of any size."  Later, it talks about Weberian bureaucracy and states that "bureaucracy is characterized by hierarchical organization, delineated lines of authority in a fixed area of activity, action taken on the basis of and recorded in written rules, bureaucratic officials need expert training, rules are implemented by neutral officials, career advancement depends on technical qualifications judged by organization, not individuals."  Wikipedia is characterized by hierarchical organization and delineated lines of authority in a fixed area of activity.  This exists to an extent as well.  Supposedly, the hierarchy goes the office to bureaucrats to administrators to editors.  This is not completely true, and also contributes to the fuzziness over whether or not Wikipedia is a bureaucracy.  My final decision comes from the page Bureaucrat.  While reading this page, I realized administrators are essentially bureaucrats.
 * Admins are appointed to their position on the basis of conduct
 * Admins exercise their authority delegated to them in accordance with impersonal rules, and their loyalty is enlisted on behalf of the faithful execution of their official duties
 * Admins' appointments and job placements are dependent upon their technical qualifications
 * Admins must exercise their judgment and their skills, but their duty is to place these at the service of a higher authority. Ultimately they is responsible only for the impartial execution of assigned tasks and must sacrifice their personal judgment if it runs counter to their official duties. There are certainly exceptions to these because of WP:IAR; however, there are many cases where policy does take precedent over personal judgement Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Results
That is possibly the most persuasive argument that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy I've ever seen, well done. Good answers all round.
 * Thanks, I just might expand that someday and turn it into an essay. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Templates
Templates allow you to post large sections of text or complicated sections of code while only typing a few characters. Templates work similar to regular links, but instead of double square brackets, you use. To call a template, just type the title of the template between the double braces. You don't need to include the "Template:" prefix; the MediaWiki software automatically searches within the Template namespace for what you're looking for. Only if the page you're looking for is in a different namespace do you need to specify it. See below: One template you can use to welcome new users, Template:W-basic, has several parameters which can customize its appearance. Most of those parameters are named, in that you have to specify to the template what the name of the parameter is when you use it. sets the parameter "anon" to "true", which generates a message directed towards anonymous users. The advantage to named parameters is that they can be placed in any order, but they must be spelled exactly right or they will not work. The template also uses an unnamed parameter, one which does not have to be specified when it is put into use. Templates automatically assign a numerical name to unnamed parameters when they are used, starting with "1". sets the unnamed parameter "1" to "message", which is what that parameter is used for in that template. The userbox above can specify the number of states visited with that same unnamed parameter. Unnamed parameters must be in sequential order to work properly, unless you force them to be out of order by using syntax such as. Using "1=, 2=" is also required if the parameter has a = anywhere within (occasionally the case with some external links).

When writing templates, there are some extra tags and codes that have special effects when a template is called.

Conditional templates allow for use of more intricate templates, with optional parameters or different effects depending on what a certain parameter is set to. They use parser functions such as #if: to apply certain conditions to the code. Use of these functions can allow you to create some rather advanced templates, but often get exceedingly complicated and should only be edited by those users who fully understand how they work. Since these are rather complex, they will not be covered in your exam, but if you'd like we can cover them after we've completed the other topics.

I forgot to mention - there are two ways to call a template. Transclusion is simply calling the template as I showed you above:. This displays the template where you put the call for it, but leaves the curly braced call in place so that it's easy to remove. This also causes the template to update every time the page is loaded, if it has been edited or has a time-sensitive variable. Substitution, or "subst'ing" a template, causes the opposite effect. To substitute a template, add the code "subst:" at the beginning of the call:. When this is done, you are seeing the curly-braced call for the last time, because when you save the page, the MediaWiki software will replace that call with the template's code. This causes the template to lock in place - however it was when you called it, is how it's going to be from then on. This makes things a little difficult to remove, though, as instead of the simple template call, you've probably got lines of code that are now clogging up your article. Depending on how the template it written, it may require subst'ing to work properly, or it may require that it is not subst'ed. The page at WP:SUBST gives details on what templates should, must, or must not be substituted. When writing templates, it can also be useful to enclose the subst: code within tags. See below.

This lesson should show you how templates can be really useful for a lot of things. However, we can make templates even more functional and more powerful by having them do different things depending on what the parameters we set are. For more information on that, see the optional lesson on Advanced Templates.

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/Ryan Vesey/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:

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

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

4) My name is Ryan Vesey 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'

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.) Note I am going to revert these, I can't look at vandalism and not revert it ...Jeeze vandalism is slow today
 * Diff 1: Why you think this is vandalism: Clearly an attack on the subject in question, the warning I left was adding negative unsourced material to a BLP
 * Diff 2: Why you think this is vandalism: I'm not sure if it was explicit vandalism, or if it was just an editing test but it includes the introduction of random gibberish
 * Diff 3: If I was being creative I would probably call this one original research.

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 :)
 * Ready, I do a lot of anti-vandalism work. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I sort of cheated on the finding vandalism part by using Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool, my tool of choice when I am using Twinkle instead of Huggle. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Q1) How would you define vandalism?
 * A: Anything that is meant to intentionally hurt the credibility of the encyclopedia

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: Yes, there are two types of vandals in my opinion-Accidental vandals and true vandals. Accidental vandals are genuine editors who make a change that, although certainly vandalism, wasn't meant to be malicious.  True vandals repeatedly vandalize wikipedia just for the enjoyment of vandalizing.  The four warning levels help differentiate the accidental vandals from the true vandals.

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: No, they really don't need any; although, I believe they should have at least one. You should report to WP:AIV after there has been vandalism after a level four warning or an only warning.

Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning?
 * A: In cases of blatant vandalism. I usually use this in the event of personal attacks on another editor or on the subject of the article.

Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings?
 * A: Yes, everything is saved and my real reason goes back to the "accidental vandals". It also comes from personal experience.  The first edit on my talk page was a vandalism warning.  I removed it because I had seen it and I did not want it to sway the opinions of other editors when they came to my page.

Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism?
 * A: Not unless it was made to intentionally harm the encyclopedia. This can be almost impossible to prove and it is always better to assume good faith.

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: I have contemplated this before and I don't think so. Some users argue that if registration was required, the anons who are making good contributions would just create accounts.  I firmly disagree.  My first edit ever was from an IP address.  I can't remember the page, but I know it was the removal of some irrelevant content.  I later created an account so that I could change the page Aluminium to Alumin(i)um.  Ok, so I clearly wasn't that knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies/naming conventions at the time.  After creating the account, I started making all of my other edits.  If it had not been for my first edit as an IP, I would never have started editing Wikipedia with an account. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Results
Looks good to me. one question though, regarding an "accidental vandal"... if you consider it accidental, how can it be intentional? I think you're saying that perhaps they were unaware of the consequenses, and a warning would be sufficient to ward them off? (oh and this is an open book test, I don't mind how you get your answers as long as you're thinking)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It might just be the wording. Maybe "temporary vandal" would be a more appropriate term. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:38, 28 June 2011 (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. ;)
 * Ready for the final exam. I am part of WikiProject Wikify and have taken part in AFD's/XFD's. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well get ready to join ANOTHER project and take part in some more :P Test is here - good luck  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)