User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/Go Phightins!

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

User:Jimbo Wales

The Five Pillars

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. 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. 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. How articles should be written The articles in Wikipedia are designed to represent the sum of human knowledge. Each article should be written from a neutral point of view – personal opinions such as right and wrong should never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy. To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original. Reliable sources So what is a source? Wikipedia uses the word source for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic – so whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent. A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception – so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable by default. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that. Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue! There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here. Questions? Any questions or would you like to try the test? Assuming I'm permitted to refer to either this or WP:5P and the other respective policy articles during the test, I am ready to begin. Go Phightins! 17:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Okay Phightins, it is below:Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 18:49, 21 October 2012 (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 - You could add this to an article only if there has been an official release from Ford or a report from a reliable source. This reminds me of last night when I spent a half an hour reverting IPs adding speculation that John Farrell had been hired as manager of the Red Sox. The reference was an unnamed source to a reporter of ESPN's Boston blog. Since the source was unnamed, there was no way of knowing that some anonymous person hadn't just called in with a piece of speculation. Thus, until ESPN had published an official report, which means that they deemed it credible enough to publish with their reputation as the top sports news service, it shouldn't be published. The same applies to this scenario...unless a top news service (e.g., CNN, Car and Driver magazine, etc.) has determined that the report is reliable, you shouldn't add it to the article. Go Phightins! 19:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Very good. In short, require a good source or remove it. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 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 - Per both pillar two and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. Therefore, my personal opinion on whether the comic is racist is irrelevant. This is sort of a gray area, in my opinion. One cartoon is probably not notable unless it generates enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, so no. As for adding to the racism article, again, it's probably not notable enough unless it generates massive coverage. Go Phightins! 19:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Again, spot on. Editors should try to stick to NPOV and unless a big media fuss was made about the cartoon, best to leave it out. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 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- I would have to think this would be trivia. Pillar one says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I hardly think either of these pass the threshold of being "encyclopedic"...Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Thus, I'd say that either of these tidbits should be included. Go Phightins! 19:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC) 4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV? A - The writers of the article certainly think so...it's been cited about two dozen times in the article. Yes, I think that BBC is probably reliable as a news service for this. Based on my reading, ITV vs. BBC is roughly the same as America's NBC vs. ABC (not familiar with ITV, occasionally have read some things on BBC's site). Depending on what the content in question is. If it's content on ITV's history or something uncontroversial and indisputable, sure. If it's on how good ITV is, of course not. Go Phightins! 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Agreed, although it would be interesting, remarkable and perhaps information. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source? A- No, per first sentence of WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. Is Ben and Jerry's (ahh, yes, definitely familiar with them, yum!) really going to disclose on their Facebook page, "Well, Breyer's thinks our ice cream sucks."? No. Therefore, it's probably not reliable for our purposes. Go Phightins! 19:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, this is a lot more likely to be promotional rather than neutral and will try to show Ben and Jerry's in their best light. Any sort of informal source like a social network is best avoided. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 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 don't think so. Just because I say something doesn't make it the official position of any organization I'm involved with. WP:SELFSOURCE says that self-published sources on oneself can be reliable when, among some other stipulations that don't apply here, the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Either of those stipulations knock out a forum post by a "forum official". Go Phightins! 19:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Good observations. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.hopsandpips.com being used in a beer related article? A - When I click on this link, it says the page cannot be found. If this was an intentional illustration of linking pages that aren't up as sources, then I would say that I'd look for the information that uses it as a citation on another site, and if I couldn't find anything, I would probably tag the article as needing additional reliable sources. If this wasn't intended, then, well, as mentioned I my computer tells me the page cannot be found. Go Phightins! 20:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, that wasn't intended. (Haven't checked the links for a bit). I'm sure you would have got the answer right anyway. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 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, this would meet all the necessary stipulations of WP:SELFSOURCE. Go Phightins! 20:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Because this page has a factual rather than promotional base, it would be alright to take facts from that source AS LONG AS it is all completely rewritten with no paraphrasing. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 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 - I don't believe so...the sky being bronze would probably be original research or vandalism. In either case, I would probably revert the edit and add the "welcome unsourced" template to his talk page. Go Phightins! 20:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC) OK, supposing the editor is an arb or oversighter who has extreme views on the sky - I don't think a template would be best in such a case. Who said they were new? Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)  Done Note: Since your userpage says that you edit primarily on weekends, could you post the next lesson so I can start reading up before asking questions or taking the test next weekend when you're back? Thanks--Go Phightins! 21:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Overall you have done very well. I am posting the next lesson below and you can ask anything you need, then you can move onto another assignment. Also, I can usually get on for a few hours each day so I don't think your request will be necessary. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Wikiquette WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made. I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out. Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. 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. How's the soup? --[[User:John]] :It's great!! --[[User:Jane]] ::I made it myself! --[[User:John]] Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]] :I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]] How's the soup? --John It's great!! --Jane I made it myself! --John Let's move the discussion to Talk:Soup. --Jane I tend to disagree. --George 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? One quick one, and then I'm ready for the test. As far as threading {{od}} is for when you are keeping something in the same thread but the discussion is starting too far over, correct? Go Phightins! 19:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC) That's right. So if the conversation got too far over here we could use this. Test is below. Rcsprinter (state) @ 16:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC) That's what I thought. All right, done with test. Go Phightins! 19:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Test Have a look at the conversation below: What's the best car in the world? -- Rod Probably something German or Japanese. -- Freddie Like what -- Rod's Mate I dunno, something like Volkswagon? -- Freddie Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Postion:A What do you want it for? -- Jane Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Position:B Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In 1) Position A? A- Rod's Mate, who posed the question asking Freddie to elaborate. 2) Position B? A- Rod, who posted the original question. 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, maybe all the editors involved should be given notifications about using talk pages as a forum, but just because a new editor has figured things out doesn't make him a sock.  Done --Go Phightins! 19:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Again good, although where in question 3 did it say about it being related to those talk page discussions? :D You have a point, they are really just for discussing wikipedia, but for the purposes of this test it was only for illustration and the topic could have been anything. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 22:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Copyright Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson. Glossary There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference. Term Explaination Attribution The identification of work by an author Copyright symbol © - used to show work is under copyright Creative Commons Creative Commons is an organisation that provides licensing information aimed at achieving a mutual sharing and flexible approach to copyright. Compilation A new work created as a combination of other works, which may be derivative works. Derivative work A work which is derived from another work. (Eg a photograph of a painting) Disclaimer A statement which limits rights or obligations FACT Federation Against Copyright Theft Fair use Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country. Copyright infringement Use of work under copyright without permission Intellectual property Creations of the mind, under which you do have rights. License The terms under which the copyright owner allows his/her work to be used. Non-commercial Copying for personal use - not for the purpose of buying or selling. Public domain Works that either cannot be copyrighted or the copyright has expired Image Copyright on Wikipedia What you can upload to commons Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it. Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution. So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia. Free images Non-free images Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere. Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of Wikipedia's strict conditions in order to use them. (Non free content criteria) In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license. If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed) There must be no free equivalent We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used) Must have been published elsewhere first Meets our general standards for content Meets our specific standards for that area Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it) Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used. Can only be used in article space The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag It's a lot, isn't it! Well, let's have a look at the non free stuff. I'm going to suggest two different images. One, a tabloid picture of celebrity actress Nicole Kidman, and the other, the cover of the album Jollification by the Lightning Seeds. The tabloid picture of Nicole Kidman will instantly fail #1, because there can be a free equivalent - anyone can take a picture of Nicole. The album cover on the other hand is unique - there's no free equivalent. It's discussed in the article too, so showing it will be useful in context (#8). The copy we show should be shrunk, so that it can't be used to create pirate copies (#2). I couldn't put it on my userpage though (or even here) (#9) Get it? Well here are a few more examples. I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted. Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable. For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo. Commons When people refer to Commons on wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias. Copyright and text So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see how it applies to text. All the principles are the same - you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right there Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not. Got it? Good. Questions This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations. So an example of something that would qualify under fair use would be the Philadelphia Phillies logo which is used on their team page because the Phillies don't really lose out by us displaying it, we can't generate it ourselves, it's useful to the article, it's only used in article space, and we only use it on that page and other pages directly relating to the Phillies? And the reason the Phillies userboxes PHIThis user is a fan of the Philadelphia Phillies This user is a Philadelphia Phillies phanatic. This user is a member (and "phan") of the Phillies WikiProject. PHIThis user works with the Philadelphia Phillies WikiProject. can't use the Phillies logo is because they're displayed outside of article space? Go Phightins! 01:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC) That's correct. It can only be displayed in the mainspace where it is illustrating the article subject matter, but copyright stops it being used elsewhere, e.g. userspace. Giving you the test now. Test Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free? A- Depends on how you define free. If free means you can use anything that is yours or isn't explicitly owned by someone else, then sure. It's the whole argument about America being a free country. Sure it's free in a sense, meaning you aren't restricted as far as speech, but actions have consequences. Same applies on Wikipedia. If we abuse this privilege of freedom by violating others' copy rights and intellectual property, then we lose the right to a "free" encyclopedia. Go Phightins! 19:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons? A- When the the picture is yours, or when whoever owns it grants you permission. The exception to this would be if it's a picture of something >150 or so years old. Go Phightins! 19:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons? A- No. From Wikimedia Commons' guidelines on licensing: "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted as well." Go Phightins! 19:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition. A- I don't believe so. It wouldn't be a free image as the covers aren't in the public domain or published under a CC license and I don't think it meets all the criteria for non-free images because it likely wasn't published elsewhere first. Additionally, I'm not sure how helpful it would be in context. Go Phightins! 19:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope? A- Don't believe so. The Pope makes a reasonable amount of public appearances, so anyone could take a picture of him. Go Phightins! 19:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row? A- Probably. Very few people can take pictures of a death row prisoner, so I think that this would be acceptable. Go Phightins! 19:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. What do you do? You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA A- I would probably tag it with the copyvio tag and, considering how big that is, hopefully someone would notice and look into it. If nothing happened, I might blank the text and post a note on the talk page. If I had some time on my hands, I might look into finding some additional sources and rewriting it, but I very rarely have time on my hands, so tagging would probably be the direction I'd head. Go Phightins! 19:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move? A- Could you clarify this one? Cut-and-paste from an outside website to a Wikipedia page, or from one Wikipedia page to another? Go Phightins! 19:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!) A- File:Philadelphia_Eagles_primary_logo.svg. Go Phightins! 19:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)  Done except for number 8...and a note, Hurricane Sandy is going to be moving through my area Sunday-Tuesday, so my editing may be moderately sporadic depending on whether or not I lose power. Anyway, in case I'm off the project without explanation. Go Phightins! 19:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC) OK, I like your answers again. For clarification on question 8, it refers to inside wikipedia. The clue being "move". But this doesn't matter enourmously. I think we can progress. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 10:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

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. Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. 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? Questions about any of the above? Ahhh, dispute resolution. What a topic! I think I'll take my chances on the test. Go Phightins! 13:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Dispute resolution test 1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss? A- I'm a big fan of BRD. BRD means that an editor makes a bold edit to an article, an editor who disagrees reverts it, and then a discussion ensues on the talk page of the article where those two editors along with any others engage in a civil discussion to reach a consensus or compromise, which then is carried out. Go Phightins! 18:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 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- An edit war is not meant to be won. An edit war should stop after one revert. Editor A should make an edit, Editor B should then revert it and then initiate a discussion using BRD...Go Phightins! 18:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 3) What is vandalism? A- In my opinion, vandalism is any edit that's not intended to improve Wikipedia. Though the policy is construed slightly more narrowly than my definition, that's how I'd define it. Go Phightins! 18:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment? A- My understanding of this would be that it's supposed to be a progression starting with editor assistance, then to third opinion, then to RFC. Editor assistance is supposed to be a relatively informal way of getting a bit of feedback from a more experienced editor, third opinions are supposed to be when there's a dispute between two editors, and requests for comment are supposed to be the last step before an arbitration. A request for comment is to gain more input from the community as a whole. Go Phightins! 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)  Done, I believe. Go Phightins! 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Your answers are fine. Good definition of vandalism, and understanding of 3RR. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

--Personal break--

Personal break Before we move onto the next lesson, I'd like to find out more about who I'm coaching. This informal hiatus allows discussion between us extending personal wikirelations and better collaboration for in the future. Here are some questions just to get going: 1) Why do you edit Wikipedia? Why are you drawn to it? A- I honestly don't know why I started. Several years ago, I think I probably vandalized a page for the heck of it as an IP, but that probably planted a seed. I saw how easy it was to edit and a year later, I created this account while reading about the Philadelphia Eagles offseason and I think my first edit was objecting to an PROD tag that was placed on the Dave Fipp article, which I'd happened to be reading. I edited sporadically for about two months and then pretty much forgot about it until late July of this year, when I, for some reason, got back into it. Since then, I've really delved in. I don't honestly know why I keep coming back. I just feel like Wikipedia is a really cool concept, something that I suppose is making history, and it's something I want to be a part of. Plus, I feel that one who takes advantage of the encyclopedia by reading its articles should help improve it in some facet so the next person can enjoy it as much as I did. So, that I suppose is the unabridged Wiki-biography of Go Phightins! Right, I just wanted to see your story. Rcsprinter (gas) @ 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 2) What's the inspiration behind your username? A- The Philadelphia Phillies. The late great Harry Kalas always referred to them as the Phightin Phils, so after every other Phillies inspired nickname I could think of was taken, I thought of this, and have used it since. Haha, very good! Rcsprinter (gas) @ 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 3) What's your main interest to edit about? A- Sports and politics articles. Right now, I'm working on bringing Jim Thome up to GA, which would be my first, though it may not pass this time, the reviewer has several issues with it...but often times while watching a football game, I'll post its scoring plays and stats to Wikipedia. Okay, I like your ambition and loyalty - putting things straight online before anyone else, true fan. Rcsprinter (gas) @ 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) --Go Phightins! 15:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks Go Phightins!, that's helped a bit. Shall we procede to lesson five? Rcsprinter (gas) @ 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

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 {{db-copyvio|website}} 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. 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}}. 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. 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 {{subst:prod|reason}} 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, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}. 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"? Let's do it...thus far I've gotten about 1/2" of rain and it's pouring with 35 mph wind gusts that are increasing, so power outages are likely imminent. I'll at least get started. Go Phightins! 16:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC) How'd you read all that so quick? No worries with the storm, luckily I am at no threat. :P Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 16:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Deletion 1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD? A- I would use PROD in a case where I expected the deletion to be relatively uncontroversial deletion, or a case when no CSD categories applied. AfD would be used for almost every other situation (e.g., PROD was contested, notability concerns, etc.) --Go Phightins! 17:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Yes. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :) A If someone created a page about me, that would be a good time for A7...I'm definitely a remarkable individual, but not an individual remarkable enough for Wikipedia. :) A more common example would be a kid in school creating a page about themself or a kid sitting near them. --Go Phightins! 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, good reasons. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them? 3)First A CSD A7. This person is less remarkable than me!--Go Phightins! 17:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Yes. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 4)Second A BLPPROD, assuming the subject is living, otherwise AfD on the grounds of not passing WP:N; if I was in a happy mood, I might spend some time looking for sources, but I know next to nothing about the subject; hopefully a BLPPROD tag would motivate someone with interest there to expand it--Go Phightins! 17:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Yes. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 5)Third A G2--even I have more coherent thoughts than that! Go Phightins! 17:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Yes. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 6)Fourth A That's borderline...maybe I'd tag it with a few maintenance tags for notability concerns along with needing additional reliable sources, and if nothing happened I might start an AfD discussion. Go Phightins! 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC) That would work. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) 7)Fifth A Either G3 as a blatant hoax, or A7 as an unremarkable person. Go Phightins! 17:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Why would you say G3? It may all be true... A7 would be more appropriate. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)  Done Go Phightins! 17:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Good work again. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Policy & Consensus

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? Don't think so. Go Phightins! 17:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Policy 1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay? A- A policy or guideline describes the general consensus among the community on how something should be done, whereas an essay is the unilateral opinion of one or a few users. Essays are nonbinding, whereas policies, though they can change, are "law" if you will, though in some cases WP:IAR can come into play. Go Phightins! 19:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 2) Can Policy change? A In theory, policies can change, though this is a massive undertaking. The way they change is spelled out here, but it basically says if there's a high level of consensus to change something, it can happen, but as always, it's not a simple up or down vote. Go Phightins! 19:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy? A- This gets into a de facto vs. de jure debate. In theory, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There are times when this applies...for example, we've decided to ignore Pillar #4 to allow User:Malleus Fatuorum continue editing on Wikipedia despite his constant violation of said pillar, but usually in AfD discussions, for example, we do become a bureaucracy focusing on the letter of the law as far as WP:N and WP:GNG. Usually, I would say, Wikipedia is more of a bureaucracy than we'd like to be. Go Phightins! 19:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)  Done- Well, #3 is moderately crass, but it's an example I suppose...with that I believe I'm done with this test. Go Phightins! 19:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Good arguaments. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 16:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Templates - NOT COMPLETED

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 {{curly braces}}. 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: What I type What appears Comments {{user en}} enThis user is a native speaker of the English language. This calls Template:User en. All content there (that is marked to be included, see below) appears where I type the template code. {{Rcsprinter DYK}} {{Rcsprinter DYK}} I get a red link because no page exists at Template:Rcsprinter DYK. {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}} This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know. When I specify the User: namespace, the userbox I have at that location appears. Thus, a template does not have to be in the Template: namespace to work. {{User DYK}} This user has written or expanded a number of articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page. I get a {{{1}}} where a number should appear. This is due to the fact that I did not specify a parameter in that template. 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. {{w-basic|anon=true}} 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". {{w-basic|message}} 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 {{template|2=foo|1=bar}}. 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. Code What it does {{{1}}} Causes a parameter "1" to display at that location. {{{name}}} Causes a parameter "name" to display at that location. (Calling the template {{Template|name=Worm}} will cause "Worm" to display at that location) {{{1|foo}}} Sets a default value "foo" for parameter "1", which prevents the parameter from displaying as it does in the userbox above. This can be blank: {{{1|}}} <includeonly>foo</includeonly> Causes the text "foo" to only appear when the template is called. It will not appear on the template page, or in previews when editing the template. As a result, any code included in these tags will not be executed until the template is called. <noinclude>foo</noinclude> Removes the text "foo" from the template. Documentation (notes on how to use a template) is always included with these tags so that it is not called along with the template. {{{1|lorem ipsum}}} <noinclude>dolor sit amet</noinclude> <includeonly>etc...</includeonly> When this template is called, it will display parameter 1 first, followed by "etc...". If parameter 1 is not defined, the template will display "lorem ipsum etc..." 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: {{template}}. 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: {{subst:template}}. 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 <includeonly> tags. See below. Code Displays Comments {{CURRENTTIME}} 01:24 Template is transcluded, so updates every time you load the page. {{subst:CURRENTTIME}} 22:56 Template is substituted, so is stuck on the time I saved this page. {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}} 16:28 Here, the template acts as though it were transcluded on the source page of this lesson, User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/Templates. However, it was substituted when I placed this lesson on the main adoption page, and so is stuck at the time shown. 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. OK, templates are a weak point of mine, but we'll see how it goes. Go Phightins! 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC) 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:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/Go Phightins!/Template. It's a template! Have a look at it now. Depending on how you call it, different things will happen. So I'd like you to call the template so that you get the correct result. No using subst, just use the parameters of your nice new template. 1) I intend to pass this module! (Template module) A: I intend to pass this module! (Template module) 2) My name is Go Phightins! and I intend to pass this module! (Template module) A: I intend to pass this module! (Template module) 3) My name is Go Phightins! and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module) A: 4) My name is Go Phightins! 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. OK, I'm confused already. What exactly am I suppose to do? Go Phightins! 21:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC) You have to transclude the template I linked to above a particular way for each answer, using parameters. You should be able to get it to say the same as the question says, but through the template. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 23:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC) All right, I got the first one. For the second one, do I add a parameter on this page, or do I have to edit the template itself. In addition, if I edit the template, that will change all the others on this page that link to that one. Should I create a second template? Does any of this make sense, or am I just way overcomplicating this? Go Phightins! 01:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC) I think you are. only edit it for question four, and work out how the parameters should work for all the other questions. Rcsprinter (post) @ 01:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry for my template illiteracy here...shouldn't adding the name parameter where I did and then typing my name make it appear? Or am I missing something? Go Phightins! 01:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

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: (diff) (hist) . . Shigeru Miyamoto‎; 14:32 . . (+28) . . 201.152.102.192 (Talk) (→Competition with Sony and Microsoft) 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. 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. 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. The next link is the article that the edit was made to. 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. 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. 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. The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that. Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.) IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning: Now that that's over with, go do your task. Have fun! (By the way, please ignore new pages, indicated by a bold "N" on the log entry.) Diff 1: [2] Why you think this is vandalism: It's a mass removal of content without an edit summary that doesn't appear constructive. Go Phightins! 20:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Diff 2: [3] Why you think this is vandalism: Sorry, I did revert this one, my fault. Anyway, it's a bunch of nonsense characters in place of what was previously content related to the subject of the article, Veterans Day. Go Phightins! 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Diff 3: [4] Why you think this is vandalism: The user changed the name of the drummer without a source to his username's derivation as well as replacing two other names with replacements that are hardly believable, all with out a source. Go Phightins! 20:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 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 "{{BASEPAGENAME}} 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--Go Phightins! 20:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Right, it is below. You did fine on your task above, it doesn't matter that you reverted one. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Vandalism Q1) How would you define vandalism? A: Anything that intentionally disrupts the encyclopedia is to me considered vandalism. Go Phightins! 02:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 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: Personally, I think a three strikes and you're out system would be sufficient. If someone vandalizes us three times in the course of 30 days they are likely not here to make constructive contributions. But I understand the 4 level system. Go Phightins! 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 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: Well, technically no. Though it often turns out that way. I think that three levels is sufficient prior to making an AIV request. Vandalism only accounts, however, can be blocked sooner than 4 warnings. To me, vandalism should always be on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, more warnings may be necessary than others. Go Phightins! 03:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning? A: If in the lead section to the Barack Obama article, someone blanked what was there and changed it to: "Barack Obama is a #@$!#$! gay muslim who's sole goal is to screw the American people with communist policies. Go Phightins! 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings? A: Unless they start making constructive contributions, no, I don't think they should. Removing a warning also seems to indicate that they are circumventing process, which means they probably are not here to help. Go Phightins! 03:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism? A: Vandalism is intentional, so unless the copyright violation is intentionally meant to harm the encyclopedia, then I would say that it's not vandalism. That said, it does of course need to be addressed. Go Phightins! 03:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 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: If we're truly a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which I think we should strive to be, I think that IP editors should be allowed to edit freely. Though I do believe that RPP should be a bit more stringent in an effort to prevent vandalism. Requiring registration should be a last resort, but I don't think we're there just yet. Go Phightins! 03:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)  Done --Go Phightins! 03:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot you were waiting for me! Your answers are all fine. Rcsprinter (talk to me) @ 17:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Final test

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! 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. 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. ;) Am I supposed to post a diff of me doing each of the things above, or are they just examples of what's incorporated on the final test? Go Phightins! 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC) I'm just telling you what's in the final test, should you take it. There's no need to provide any diffs just yet. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 22:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC) OK, well, I have at least some experience in each of those areas; I am currently working on my first GA (Jim Thome), have some experience at AfD where I have indirectly cleaned up some articles I felt were salvageable, have done some NPP and RCP over the years; I got rollback and have been using Huggle for RCP, and as mentioned, have done some cleanup work, though not necessarily through a backlog. I suppose that if those are the kinds of things that I'm to do in the final test, that I am ready. Go Phightins! 22:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC) So I'm ready for whatever's next in the course. Go Phightins! 22:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Okay then, please proceed to User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/Final exam. Again, sorry for keeping you waiting during the week, but this takes time to set up. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) @ 16:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC) No problem. I'll get started in a little while. Go Phightins! 20:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC) That's fine. I won't be marking it for a week though. Thought you might like to see this (ctrl+f for phightins). It involves us. Rcsprinter (talk to me) @ 16:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Haha. Well, they misquoted my answer, I said I don't think "either" would pass the threshold of notability. Maybe we should swat those flies. Go Phightins! 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)