User:WormTT/Adopt/TheSpecialUser

Hello TheSpecialUser, and welcome to my adoption school. Your first assignment is below, and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Bmusician/Adoption, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. The tests in the assignments might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see! → B  music  ian  10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * 1) Your best friend says that the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film "is the stupidest and most boring movie ever". Can you add this to the article? Why or why not?
 * Answer: Not at all. The reason is we have to write wikipedia with a neutral point of view and such comments dispute it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an personal blog or something so cannot add it to the article and if I come across such comment in an article, I would remove it.
 * 1) A blog titled "John Doe Fan Blog", that has no affiliation with the subject, states that John Doe will be going to Hong Kong on 7 July. No other source confirms this fact, so can you add this to Wikipedia? Why or why not?
 * Answer: No, cannot add it. Such Blogs are user generated and so cannot be considered a WP:RS. Anyone can do it, even I so it is more likely that the blog can be giving false info and thus it is not good for the article.
 * 1) Is the official Facebook page of KFC a reliable source?
 * Answer: This is a witty question. According to wiki, such pages are primary sources and it is stated that there should be either sec or tert source to support the primary source. I will not consider it as reliable source if it is an comment by other user and as far as the official user is concerned; As it is official page, the material can also be promotional. If it is official, then they wont upload false info, and if an announcement of something is made there, then it'll come in the news after sometime so in that case, it would be best to search for sec or tert source rather then the FB page. Also when it comes to official page, it can be added to external links, but less likely used to cite.
 * 1) Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. You decide to do a minor copyedit and fix some spelling and grammar errors. 10 minutes later, you get a message from the editor who created the article, saying: "STOP CHANGING MY ARTICLE! I made it and you have no right to edit it without my permission. It's my intellectual property and therefore I own the copyright." How do you respond?
 * Answer: If an editor shows up like that, then it is safe to assume that the editor is a newcomer and newcomers find it hard to understand the policies like me. So, I have to assume good faith as a rather rude reply can scare them or make them more angry. My prompt reply will be: Thanks for creating that article. I see that you are new here so welcome again. I just made few changes to your article (corrected grammar, made it proper, etc so that it is better now). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is built by editors like us. We all have to cooperate and help each other along with creating articles. My edits were indented to improve the article not to cause problem or make it bad. If you are the creator of the article, then it is good, but remember no one owns an article and it is not anyone's intellectual property. I don't have to seek permission. Please read: WP:Ownership of articles and WP:5P. Do not worry, editors like us will not cause any wrong to your article but will improve. Be bold and thanks.
 * 1) You have just discovered from a friend that the new Chevrolet Malibu is only going to be available in red. Can you add this to the Chevy Malibu article?　Why or why not?
 * Answer: Nope. Friends are known to exaggerate and misguide at times and so any info from a friend cannot be added to wiki unless a reliable and verifiable source is found.
 * 1) Would you consider BBC News a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * Answer: Yes. BBC and ITV both are reliable sources. The reason is that both are pubic service broadcasters and thus less commercial material. And there is an option of cite news under which they can be used
 * 1) Everybody knows that the sky is blue, right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze. Does he need a source?
 * Answer: No. I read somewhere that we don't have to cite things like the sky is blue. It is understood. If an editor disagrees and says that it is bronze, then they can be an editor who just wants to play or troll around.

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

I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
 * Assume good faith - This is fundamental. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. Every one. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
 * Sign your talk posts with four tildes ( ~ ). The MediaWiki software will substitute the four tlides with your signature and timestamp, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
 * Remember to reply to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, : . Talk pages should something like this. Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
 * Don't forget to assume good faith.
 * There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
 * Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
 * Comment on the edits. NEVER COMMENT ON AN EDITOR. EVER.

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

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


 * 1) Position A?
 * Answer: At position A, he is replying to Rod's Mate as I have learned using ":"
 * 1) Position B?
 * Answer: Here, he is replying to Rod as he used "::" which means that the reply is intended to Rod
 * 1) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible sockpuppet?
 * Answer: Sock means that the same person is using 2 or more accounts for wrong use in violation of policies of wikipedia. If an editor has low edit count and still good at templates, then it is not necessary that they are sock or newly created accounts of previous editors. It can be possible that they had skills regarding it off wiki or found creating templates easy or they would have a particular interest in the field of templates rather then other areas. It is almost impossible to determine or find their previous account. And the editor by doing good in templates is not disrupting wikipedia but helping so cannot be reported to sock or anywhere else. For example, I find doing templates pretty easy. I can easily even make them. I have also made few changes in the portal of Green Day. But this doesn't mean that I m an sockpuppet.

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

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

CC-BY-SA and GFDL
On Wikipedia, you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL. In fact, if you notice, every time when you edit, the following text is underneath the editing window: So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not.

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

There are two types of images on Wikipedia, free images and non-free images.

Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere.

Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of the non free content criteria in order to use them.

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

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

As a further note, I mentioned that fair use images must not be able to be replaced by a free alternative. What this basically means is, there is no way you, me, or anyone else could go out and take a picture of this same thing and release it under a free license. For example:
 * I could upload a picture of George W. Bush from the White House. Normally government works are automatically public domain, but let's say for the purpose of this discussion that the White House holds the copyright to that particular picture of the President. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a speech Bush is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) This is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
 * Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
 * For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.

When people refer to Commons on Wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to Wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since Commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to Commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias.

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

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

Test
Although copyright on Wikipedia may be a complex topic, please keep in mind that simple yes/no answers are not acceptable.
 * 1) Name at least two situations in which it is appropriate to upload an image to Commons.
 * Answer: If it is my work then it can be uploaded. Second, if it is someone else's work that is properly licensed can be uploaded without any problem.
 * 1) Is Wikipedia really free? Why?
 * Answer: Yes it is free till some extent. Wiki's goal is to provide free info that means no one has to pay for getting knowledge. Anyone has access to millions of words without any conditions. But when we talk about being free, it doesn't mean that we have to use copyrighted material just like that. It is free in freedom not in cost. There are many images or sound recordings available on internet and one can easily use it but they will not be proper for wikipedia. Also, in an article the material used should be self written rather then copying from something. If copied then it is violation of policies. So wiki is free but not entirely.
 * 1) Can you upload a press photo of the pianist Lang Lang under a claim of fair use?
 * Answer: Yes I can but it will not be the right thing to do. If I upload a pic and someone else has taken a better snap so in such case, it is best to upload a pic taken yourself. If uploaded fair use image, then it will be replaceable fair use image
 * 1) Can you upload the cover art of an album under a claim of fair use?
 * Answer: Yes I can because the art's copyrights are with the record to which the band is signed to and so it is classified as a non-free content.
 * 1) Can you upload a press photo of a prisoner on death row under a claim of fair use?
 * Answer: The image will be copyrighted to the media source so it cannot be uploaded under free content but fair use.
 * 1) You find an article about a company that is a direct copy of the About Us page on their website. What would you do?
 * Answer: I would tag it for deletion as it is not in accordance to wiki's policies. Also a copyright infragement if not stated properly it's source and usage. Such images are intended to advertise and wiki is not a place for it. It is an encyclopedia and such image disputes neutral point of view policy also.
 * 1) Go to any Wikipedia article and find an image that is used under "fair use". Link to the image in your answer.
 * Answer: My favorite File:Green Day - American Idiot cover.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Test

 * 1) There is a new page created that says "John Doe is a renowned poet living in Florida. He has won many awards for his poetry, including the Pulitzer Prize." Would the page be applicable for speedy deletion? Why or why not?
 * Answer: First of all to be fair, I'll search in google and wiki. So when I searched google, there was no such result that john has ever won such award. Also there are no other important results. In the article Pulitzer Prize, there is not stated that he has ever won that award. So clearly I'll G3 it.
 * Follow Up Question: John Doe is used as a placeholder name. Assume that John really did win the Pulitzer Prize. Would the page still be applicable?
 * A: No it won't be then. As the person has won the prize and is a poet, this means that the person has done something notable so CSD will not be applicable. In this case, if the article is not referenced, then BLPPROD will be good and if refed, then no. CSD will not be valid for it.
 * 1) A newly created page consists of the following content: "John Doe is a big jerk who wants to hurt all of the people in town! He has AIDS and he will die soon." What should you do?
 * Answer: The page is clearly intended to offend a particular person and the page is either created by someone who doesn't like that person or is just testing wiki. So db-negublp will be perfect for that page. Also one has to blank the page as a curtsy
 * 1) A newly created article is about a living person. The person's notability is established but the article has no references. What should you do?
 * Answer: If it is very much newly created, i.e., just 5 or 10 mins before then do nothing as the author may be working on it. If I tag it immediately, then it can BITE the author if they were new. In case I'll wait for 10 or 15 mins maximum and still there are no Reliable and verifiable source, then I'll BLPPRODD it.
 * 1) A user tags an article for speedy deletion under A1 nearly ten seconds after the page was created. Was their action right, and why?
 * Answer: It is not the right thing to do. Because usually new comers do not know how wiki works and they want to contribute a lot so they would just start the page hoping that they'll improve in future to bring up their edits. Now, tagging a page just 10 sec after it's creation will not be appropriate as it will easily BITE the editor. I have also read that at least one should wait for 10 mins before tagging a page under A1 and A3. So cannot tag it right after. But exceptions also exist. Like if the page created is like: I m a cool person to be friend. This can be tagged under A1 as well as G2 and A7. But A1 will be most appropriate as we cannot understand the subject at first. Also db-multiple can be used in such exceptions.
 * 1) You propose an article for deletion. The minute after you place the PROD tag on the article, the tag was removed by the page creator. What should you do now?
 * Answer: If done so, we can assume that the author also knows that the page is not notable or the author is being preservative. There is a rule that PROD cannot be added again so I cannot restore it. And then if the page is not notable, I can nominate it for AfD from which, even the author cannot do anything as it is the editors that decide by voting not by just a tag.
 * 1) A newly created page consists of the following content: "asjdfkl;asjflk;sdajfl;asdjf;lksdajfl;kasdjfn asdfsda f" What should you do?
 * Answer: This clearly means that someone is just playing with their keyboard and intentions are just to do a new thing regardless of making a meaning out of it. We have a CSD for such special cases. So obviously I have to G1 it. G1 means that something we do not understand but if a page has non-english content or bad grammar, then G1 doesn't apply. G1 in short means that no one on earth cannot understand the content except the author.
 * 1) What does CSD A7 mean to you?
 * Answer: A7 means that an article about a real person, web content, musicians, band, club, company, organization or animals that doesn't show why the subject is important. There is a gap between Importance and Notability as per my understanding. If an article states that Special user is a great student, studying in Hebron High School (Ahmedabad) who loves cricket and is caption of his school team then it is a db-person. If something like this: Yash is a TV star who does the role of PA in the TV serial..... here we can see that the person has done something important but still not notable enough. In this case if there are WP:RS, we are supposed to AfD it and if there are not, a BLPPROD would work but as the subject is not important, a normal PROD would work faster. A7 means that the subject has done nothing to establish importance (notability is far away from such subjects)

Cool tools
Tagging CSD and PROD are much easier with Twinkle. Go to WP:TW for instructions on how to install and use it!
 * I cannot use them as twinkle says that: your account is too new to use twinkle  TheSpecialUser TalkContributions 13:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to prevent abuse, you must be autoconfirmed to use Twinkle. (at least ten edits with a four day old account) → B  music  ian  15:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reports
If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards where you can get some help.

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

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

Test

 * 1) What does bold, revert, discuss mean to you?
 * A: It is a way to determine changes in an article or other things if there were 2 or more opinions (a type of dispute resolution). During this, anyone should remain civil along with patience.
 * 1) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!
 * A: No one wins it. The both were engaged in an edit war but finally stopped. In such case, they should discuss the matter on the talk page and should come to an result. If they still do not agree, an opinion by an established editor or dispute resolution should be asked for help. They should also respect the final result and should not go against it. They should not continue the edit war in any case or else they will be blocked. While I see the trick question alert, I already know the other chance. There are exceptions also. If A is an editor who is in good faith, it is not necessary that editor B will also be in good faith. There are chances that B doesn't understand policies and continues to make changes. So in this case, editor A is aware of 3RR and thus stops there as the edits by B wont be typical vandalsim but still not proper. Thus in the end if taken another opinion, A will win in this case. The third case is that B is nothing but a complete vandal. In this, A should not hesitate in reverting edits by B even if they do it more then 5 times. Though by the time, B would be blocked.
 * 1) What is vandalism?
 * A: Vandalism means anything that is attempted to dispute wikipedia. This includes humor addition, false information, irrelevant addition to pages, blanking, removing content, etc. They also include abuse of tags, image vandalism, adding copyrighted things repeatedly, personal attacks, misuse of edit summaries, false linking, spoiling user pages, and adding non-sense material. Anyways there are also other aspects which may dispute wiki, but are not vandalism. For e.g., neutrality disputes, wrong wiki links, markup, edit tests which are done while the editor is relatively new and doesn't understand the meaning of wiki, which are done without the intention to do something wrong are not vandals.
 * 1) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A: WP:EAR can be considered as asking help from 1 experienced and expert person in that topic for help with an related article or issue. 3O; Like I stated above in the answer 2, it means asking for help from a 3rd person when 2 editors do not come to any result or agreement. RfC means that someone wants input about an article, user or else, though similar to 3O, this is an detailed input to see that the thing is appropriate for wiki policies or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:Bmusician/Adoption/TheSpecialUser/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 TheSpecialUser and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
 * A:

3) My name is TheSpecialUser and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module)
 * A: Huh? I intend to do what?! :P

4) My name is TheSpecialUser 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'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Test

 * 1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
 * A:A policy is such thing that can be considered as rules or laws which are expected that each and every user will follow. In short a policy has to be followed. If the policy prevents from improving, then it could be ignored also. While, a guideline can be considered as few points which are kept in mind at the time of editing. It reflects that what is in the policies that should be followed and are expected standards for edits. The line between a policy and a guideline is quite thin, it is similar to policy, but not totally. An essay is something which in opinion of few editors state that how something should be followed or understood or edited. It doesn't matter much as it is not a policy but it is used to express views of editors.
 * 1) Can Policy change?
 * A: Yes, it can. If large amount of clear consensus is reached, a change can occur.
 * 1) In your opinion, is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?
 * A: Witty question. I don't think that it is. There are no so called: "official rules". The policies are for proper functioning of wiki but at rare times, rules can be ignored if the edit is for good of wiki.

Eight Assignment: 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 is vandalism?
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
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:

Task
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: [] Why you think this is vandalism:
 * Diff 2: [] Why you think this is vandalism:
 * Diff 3: [] Why you think this is vandalism:

How to Revert
Well, if you're using anything but Internet Explorer 8 and below, 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.

Discussion
Any questions? If you want to take the test, please confirm that you have finished your task in the "IMPORTANT WARNING" section, and have signed the important warning so I can give you the test.