Hi Gilderien, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substituted across a lesson for you and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Worm That Turned/Adopt, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. I haven't finished them all as yet - the red linked ones are likely to change, but feel free to read ahead - it might help. The tests might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Also we now have a talk area for us to use, away from the more public areas - if you would like to use it - it's at User Talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Gilderien. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see WormTT· (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The Worm That Turned Adoption Course Barnstar
Well done on completing the course! I'm sorry I've been so slow on all the jobs, but you've been an excellent student and have the makings of a great wikipedian. If you ever need any help, you know where I am, but go out there and be confident that you know more than the average joe! WormTT(talk) 10:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
So by now you know how to edit pages, one of the most important features of Wikipedia. The interesting bit, however, is getting things to look, well, interesting. There are a number of different bits of code that you can use in your editing to create different effects when the page is saved - they can be as simple as bold text or italics, but different bits of code can be combined to make a very appealing layout.
I should warn you that in most cases, special formatting is frowned upon in articles. It should only be used in certain situations, and when it is necessary to illustrate a particular point. Aside from those cases, text in articles should be just as you see it in this sentence - plain black, with only the occasional wikilink to spice things up.
The old editing toolbar - a few less buttons! Here, I'm going to show you what each of the buttons on your editing toolbar does and how to use the particular bit of code it produces. There are rather a lot of them, so what I'm going to do first is show you where you can go to test all this out while you're reading. There are two places: you can go to the main sandbox that everyone uses at Wikipedia:Sandbox. This is a special page that is cleaned out every hour automatically, that gives editors a place to play with new code and vandals a place to vandalize other than our articles. The only problem with the sandbox is this: Whatever you save there isn't likely to stay for long, and there is a high chance of you getting hit with a few edit conflicts. So, to avoid that, you can create your own sandbox! On Wikipedia, you are able to tack "subpages" onto your main user page to use for testing things out, writing new articles, or other projects like what we're doing here. This page (User:Worm That Turned/Adopt) is a subpage of User:Worm That Turned, and the source of this lesson (User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/How to Edit) is a subpage of that subpage. You can create user subpages by searching for the page you want to create in the search box. It won't find it, of course, however a red link will appear at the top of the page. Click on that, and edit away! For example, try searching for User:Worm That Turned/Example and creating it.
To make your sandboxes, we're going to skip a few steps. This is a handy little box that we can use to start making a new page. It will bring you to your own personal sandbox, which you can start using right away.
Now that you have somewhere to test all this code out in, let's start showing you what all it does. Here we go!
Toolbar Button
What it does
The code it makes
Short description
What it looks like
Notes
Bold text
'''Bold text'''
Three apostrophes (') on either side of the bold text
Bold text
The title of an article is always in bold the first time you see it.
Italic text
''Italic text''
Two apostrophes (') on either side of the italic text
The arrow you see indicates an external link. Other symbols represent other types of pages: A lock for an https:// or "secure" site, an Adobe PDF logo for .pdf extensions, a smiley-face speech bubble for irc:// channels, among others.
Level 2 section heading
== Headline text ==
Two equals signs on either side of the headline.
To avoid breaking the Table of Contents, I will not demonstrate this here. The heading with your username is a level 2 header, and the heading above this table (How To Edit) is a level 3 (=== level 3 ===)
Lower-level headers can be created with more equals signs. Only one equals sign on either side makes a level 1, usually only found in the title of the page. Level 2 headers are most common, and levels 3 and lower allow more specific divisions.
Insert image
[[File:Bad Title Example.png]]
Exactly the same as an internal link, however the pipe works differently. The Image: prefix and .jpg (or whatever) extension MUST be present.
The image size, framing, location, and captioning can all be controlled using the pipe character mentioned before. The most common application is [[File:Bad Title Example.png|thumb|caption here]], which produces a captioned thumbnail as you see in the picture of the toolbar above. Further settings are described in Wikipedia:Extended image syntax.
Insert media
[[Media:Example.ogg]] OR [[File:Example.ogg]]
Exactly the same as an internal link, however pipes should not be used. The "Media:" OR "Image:" prefix and ".ogg" extension MUST be present.
Sound files are always in .ogg format, for reasons we'll get to later on. Don't worry if you've never heard of it before, the MediaWiki software features a built-in player, which you can get to appear by using the "Image:" prefix instead of "Media:". It doesn't make any sense to me, but that's how it works.
Mathematical formula
<math>Insert formula here</math>
Two math "tags", a technical term (not really) for two angle brackets surrounding the word "math". A closing tag is indicated with a slash.
This gets super-complicated and math formulas are only used on a limited number of articles anyway, so I won't go into too much detail. If you really want to play with it, there's an index of character codes at Help:Math. If these formulas do not display properly, please let me know. Oh, and yes, I know it's American :(
Three tildes (top) only display your signature. Four tildes (middle) show your signature with a timestamp, and are most commonly used. Five tildes (bottom) give only the timestamp.
Horizontal line
----
Four dashes.
Please use sparingly.
Buttons shown below this line are only used on Wikipedia. While the code will do the same thing on other wikis, you may not see a button for it on your toolbar.
Redirects are intended to correct spelling and capitalization mistakes in searches (since the search sucks) and reduce confusion over related terms. Any link to a redirect page will send you instead to the target - for example, click on Acidic and see where it takes you. WARNINGS: The code must be on the first line of a page to operate. Also, NEVER redirect to a redirect. This creates a "double redirect", which can screw up the server, your browser, and your brain, if you're the one trying to search for something.
Strike-through text
<s>Strike-through text</s>
This is one of the few active HTML tags. It's two "s" tags around the text.
Strike-through text
This is usually used when someone is retracting a comment they made in a discussion or talk page, but wishes to leave the comment visible as a matter of record. Note that even if something is removed on Wikipedia, you can still find it in the history.
Line break
Before<br />After
Again, an HTML tag. A single tag with two variations: <br> or <br />. I haven't been able to find any difference between the two.
Before After
Useful on Wikipedia because simply hitting "Enter" doesn't work. You have to hit enter twice to make a new paragraph, or use this to knock it down a line.
Superscript
x<sup>3</sup>
HTML "sup" tags
x3
Not much to say here. This is NOT what you use to make footnotes, though. That button comes later. This also doesn't work in math formulas, so don't try it.
Subscript
H<sub>2</sub>O
HTML "sub" tags
H2O
See above.
Smaller text
<small>Small Text</small> Big text
HTML "small" tags
Small Text Big text
Nothing to say here either.
Comment
<!-- Comment -->
Same as the HTML code for comments. Angle bracket, exclamation point, two dashes, your comment, two dashes, closing angle bracket.
Note how nothing appeared in that box. There is something there, it just didn't print. These are usually used to leave unobtrusive messages to editors about articles. For a funny example of a comment in action, go to Madness and click the edit button.
Two "gallery" tags, which enclose a list of images to be included in the gallery. Captions can be added by inserting a pipe after the image name, followed by the caption.
Demonstration not possible here. Click the link to the left to see an example.
Galleries are a way to show several pictures in an article without cluttering them up, but they have been criticized for being "tacky," and really should be used sparingly.
Quoted text (appears indented)
other text<blockquote>
abc
</blockquote>other text
Two "blockquote" tags around the quote
other text
abc
other text
Should be used for extended quotes. If you use this, make sure to provide a source for the quote, and to use direct quotes as little as possible to avoid copyright infringement.
Insert table
{| class="wikitable"
|-
abc
|}
Table syntax is complicated, and we'll cover that later on.
This is a table.
Like I said, we can cover this in a separate lesson if you want. It's not something I'm going to require.
References are displayed using the code <references />. There's a fancy bit of coding you can do to make the same reference appear multiple times, demonstrated in the second line. By adding a name="blah" parameter to the first instance of a reference, you can make the same reference appear more than once. I have these footnotes displayed below the table so you can see how they appear.
You can make lists and indents by adding characters to the beginning of a paragraph, like so:
A space before your paragraph will make the paragraph display in a box with machine font, and will cause it to run off the page if it is long enough.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
A colon (:) will cause a block indent, with all lines starting away from the edge of the page.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
An asterisk (*) will make a bullet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
A pound or number sign (#) makes a numbered list.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
You can mix and match the last three characters to get several different effects. The only caveat, though, is that you must have a continual line of #'s in order to maintain the numbering. This does not mean, however, that the numbered list has to be displayed at all times. See below for an example:
Note that you don't have to hit enter twice when starting a new line from one of these types of paragraphs. However, when you don't use them, you do.
Those last two sentences are on a different line from this one in the editing box, but there is no line break when they are displayed.
Have fun!
Lesson 1 - Five pillars - COMPLETE
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.
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.
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.
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.
Okay. Pretty sure I get this, apart from the question of whether one should (for example) add the fact that there is a minority viewpoint to a medical treatment article, if it is noted that this is not the view of the overwhelming majority of practitioners.--GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that's something I don't cover in depth - the weight you should give to viewpoints. Depending on how much of a minority it is, we shouldn't mention it in a medical article. Articles should be neutral, but not necessarily mention everything. WormTT· (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
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 - In a word, no. Is "only" going to be available. What, new, used, re-painted? I searched the Ford UK website and couldn't find anything, and to be honest, "a friend" is hardly likely to be a reliable source. If they could show me a Ford press release then I might add it, but at the moment there is really no evidence.
2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A - No, not in either - immediately. WP:NPOV says that what I might regard as racism could be radically different from what the population at large regards as racism. If I read the next day an article condemning the newspaper article as racist I would add this information to the article, stating that there was a response regarding it as racism.
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- Hmmm... I'm pretty sure that this counts as WP:NOR, and is probably just a correlation found by random sifting through data. If an article (preferably in a peer-reviewed journal) showed a causal or probable causal link, then I would add it to the article, but as of now, I think it is probably more in the Beatle Records/Sunspots class of link. (By the way, is this correlation actually true?)
A - Probably. It is meant to be "neutral". However, it does seem to (from my experience) "play down" the religious aspect of the conflict and use the euphemisms "nationalist" and "loyalist". ITV? Apart from most of its content being reality TV, its news has always seemed to me to be good quality, and it is more independent of the government than the BBC, so yes, probably.
A- No. In my experience 84% of the information on Facebook is completely wrong, and the other 16% is partially inaccurate. We're here to build an encyclopædia, not a fan site.
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- No. Community forums officials are generally not staff for the newspaper in question, and in any case shouldn't this be made by the editor, etc. or someone more "official"? It could be anyone with a POV agenda dissimilar to that of the DT.
A - Hmm, will come back to this question when the website is back up. :-(
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 one understands this better than Xerox. We are the world’s leading enterprise for business process and document management." Hmm.... Wouldn't use this. Massively POV and biased. However, this -
"160 countries
We extend our global reach through
wholly-owned subsidiaries of regional
office technology dealers, as well as
more than 6,500 authorized sales agents
and concessionaires and about 10,000
technology resellers."
and this - "Headquarters: Norwalk, CT Stock: XRX (NYSE) Employees: 136,000 CEO: Ursula M. Burns" I would probably use, as this information is likely to be true. However, I would google, for example, "Xerox employee numbers" to check that it isn't obviously exaggerated (which, in the case of profit, turnover, etc. could be a problem)
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 would like to believe that you would not need a source for something as obvious as this, but if there was any disagreement I would add a source. One such reason for dispute that I can think of is not immediately obvious to those of us in the anglophonc world; in some groups of languages the word for "blue" is the same as the word for "bronze" (especially of those of eastern Africa) and an editor may not have english as their first language.
I was going to go through and explain about where you're right and wrong, but your answers were so good... I don't need to. That's a fantastic set of answers. Well done. (And no, there's no correlation between butternut squashes and baldness. I made that up)
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
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]]
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.
So I assume Good Faith? I'm not sure you mentioned it, but I'm sure I've read it somewhere :-) Oh, and could I take the WikiMarkup lesson? I think I have a fairly good grasp of basic markup from Wikipedia and being Inheriwiki admin, but there is plenty I'm unsure about. Can I take the test?--GilderienTalk|Contribs 17:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it's all about good faith. Good faith can be really hard when you are in a disagreement with someone, but as long as you can keep remembering that no one is generally here to harm the 'pedia, they're trying to improve it, you should get on ok. WormTT· (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
OK so I answered the test and my answers haven't appeared.... I'll have a look for them.--GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
They've appeared again. Panic over.--GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Volkswagon Passat --Passat, but who is he replying to? In
1) Position A?
A- Rod's Mate
2) Position B?
A- Rod
3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
A-Yes! Definately! They must be a sock! I mean, come on, is it really likely they might actually be intelligently reading up on template help pages, or that maybe they are experienced in editing on another Mediawiki wiki (it's not like just anyone can edit a wiki, you know) like Wikia? Sock!
This is probably the most important lesson I'll give, because this is the only one where failure to adhere exactly according to policy can and will result in a block. Pay attention.
Wikipedia is as the slogan says, "The Free Encyclopedia". Unfortunately, this causes some problems when we use other materials that aren't so free, and other problems when we'd like to do something but really can't. The GNU logo Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, or GFDL. This is a copyleft license that allows for the free distribution of content under certain conditions. The main terms of this license are as follows:
Anything licensed under the GFDL must display a copy of the license (Wikipedia's is at the link I just gave you).
Any "derivative works", or works based on something licensed under the GFDL, must be licensed under GFDL.
Content licensed under the GFDL may be modified, but must include a history of all changes and who made them when.
All content licensed under the GFDL must be freely available or available under "fair use".
There are other terms to the license, but those are the most important for what is done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia displays a copy of the license, which is fully protected under the authority of the Wikimedia office. Whenever we make an edit, that edit is logged in the page's edit history, as well as your contributions. When a page is deleted, contributions to that page are hidden, but are still visible to administrators or "sysops". Certain page revisions may also be hidden from public view in the event of extreme circumstances, but are still visible to those with the authority to remove them for GFDL compliance.
Unfortunately, the GFDL does have some limit on what we can do. When merging pages, we cannot delete the page that is now empty, even if it serves little useful purpose even as a redirect. The contributions to that page, which provided the information that was merged out, must be kept logged so that people know where it came from and what changes were made when.Creative Commons logoPublic domain logo The Mediawiki software is designed to be GFDL compatible. (As a side note, the software itself is available under a similar license, the GPL.) The most common issue, and the one that most frequently results in blocks, is copyright. Any registered user can upload an image or media file. If they created the image, they can license it under a free license such as the GFDL or a Creative Commons license, or release it into the public domain (Although if you use any of those options, it's recommended to upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons instead so any language Wiki can use it.)
Copyright symbol 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
The image must have been previously published elsewhere
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.
As a further note, I mentioned that fair use images must not be able to be replaced by a free alternative. What this basically means is, there is no way you, me, or anyone else could go out and take a picture of this same thing and release it under a free license. For example:
I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.
For a full description of the policies and guidelines concerning fair use, you should read (and commit to memory :-P) the page at WP:FU. Rest assured that you will never forget the name of that shortcut. Got your head around all that? Well lets move away from images - but we're not done!
Copyright violations do not only appear on images, they can appear in text too. Even if the source text is wholly in the public domain, you can't just copy it without falling foul of plagiarism. As I'm sure you're pretty frazzled at the moment, I'm just going to say don't copy and paste text! Write it in your own words and make sure you cite your source.
Any questions? It's a heck of a topic, so feel free to ask "why" to anything, and I will do my best to explain. Let me know when you are ready for the test.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.
How long does text have to be to be copyrighted? As in, if a particular worded phrase is (theorically) the only concise and easy way to say somehing, but it appears in a copyrighted material. I'm sure I will think of more questions, but this is the first. :-) --GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Difficult really. On wikipedia, it goes beyond copyright and into plagiarism too. So whilst a short phrase may not be copyrightable, it may be plagiarised. Generally, if you can write something in your own words (and structure, which matters as much as the words) then you should. Sometimes that's not easy, or indeed possible - "James I died in 1625" cannot really be rephrased, however "The Antoinette ran aground on the dangerous Doom Bar". WormTT· (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I think I get it. (by the way, I have drafted an article I wish to submit for WP:DYK in the near future, User:Gilderien/Zennor Head, but as it my first DYK attempt, could you cast a critical eye over it and tell me what you think needs to be improved. Thanks) --GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Have answered your Zennor Head Q at your talk page. And here's the test! WormTT· (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
A-Yes. The full content can be copied, lent, borrowed, bartered, sold, etc. with only attribution.
Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
A- If you have created it yourself (i.e., your own photo) or if you take a photo of art etc. that is over 150 years old. Or, if the copyright holder has released all rights, or specifically given permission.
Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
A-Although Wikimedia is non-commercial, its content is released under the commercial version of the license, whilst the music is under a non-commercial version.
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-Not on commons, no, because it is derivitive work. On Wikipedia? Probably, but I fail to see what it would add to any article, as official ones are available.
Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
A- No, because the Pope is a public figure, and so anyone can take a photo, and the newspaper probably holds the copyright.
Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
A- Yes, probably, under fair use, if it added to the content of the article, because it is unlikely that anyone would be able to take an image themselves of the prisoner, them being on death row.
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- Remove it immediately. And re-write it in your own words (and structure). Maybe even ask a friendly administrator to RevDel the revisions with the copyrighted text. After this, I ight e-mail the company to request permission to use the text, however, but not if there would be an easy way to re-write the text.
Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
A-Just a couple of hundred...
Lose the history, makes it difficult to revert mis-information or vandalism.
Makes attribution under WP:CC-BY-SA practically impossible.
Actually, the page history is split between two articles.
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!)
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.
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.
Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.
Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Rerverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.
When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editor's argument and respond to that.
If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.
Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.
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.
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
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). There's also WP:DRN which is fairly informal but focuses more on content disputes. The editors involved with all of these processes specialise in resolving disputes.
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.
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.
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.
A-I make an Bold edit. Someone else reverts it. We (and others working on the article) discuss the issue on the article talk page and come to a consensus whether or not my edit is beneficial and should be included.
2) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!
A-No-one. You cannot "win" an edit war. Ideally, another editor will step in and give their opinion, and both editors should be advised about WP:BRD in an inoffensive manner.
A-Editor assistance is where you ask an experienced editor for advice in a content dispute, i.e. possible policy violation, Wikiquette, etc., Third Opinion is where you ask an uninvolved third party to get involved and give their opinion about a content dispute, and a RfC is where you ask the community at large for its opinion, normally getting a larger response.
In addition, I have expanded the Zennor Head Article ready for WP:DYK, could you check it and delete the redirect so that I can move it to mainspace if you think it is ready. Thanks! --GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
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. 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.
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
A I think that PROD would be used if it is a direct copy of another article, whereas AfD could be used if it was the same subject matter but different material. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I found this question the hardest of them all so far.
You are indeed wrong. PROD is used in situations where the article should be deleted under wikipedia policy and it's unlikely that anyone would disagree. One of the most common types of PROD is a WP:BLPPROD, where a WP:BLP article can be deleted if it has not references for 7 days. A direct copy of another article should be deleted speedily as a duplicate (A10). An AfD is for anything that you think should be deleted, for whatever reason, but is likely to start some discussion.
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 I actually play piano in a band with 3 or 4 of my friends, and we've played a couple of performances and the like, but it's mainly just for jamming and having fun. If an article was created about it, it would justifiably be deleted under A7, as it is obviously not notable.
Perhaps - as long as you have not made a credible indication of importance. If you say you were the first garage band to get over 1 million Youtube hits, perhaps A7 is inappropriate. Indication of importance is a lot less strict than notability, and so A7 is a lot more strict.
I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them?
A I can't find anything on google apart from deletion tests (in the first 4 or 5 pages), so I presume that this is meant to be an example of a hoax. I had a look round, and found WP:HOAX, which suggests PRODing it and marking with {{hoax}}. If this is meant to be an actually notable article example (and made up so there is no risk of your test being ruined with the actual article being created) then I would add some references and advise the creator to add some as well to demonstrate his notability.
I found quite a bit... but there you go. but I was going for an unnotable person. Anyway, I'm happy with that answer. I wouldn't assume hoax though, hoaxes are rare.
A I wouldn't nominate this for deletion at all. What I would do is cleanup according to WP:MOS, add a {{Reflist}} template and rewrite the references, etc. Looks good, the one thing I'm not sure about is (missing an article title) the precise subject matter of the article, though it is precise enough for me to have no problems passing it as notable from the information available.
A So, this is probably just made up, and so delete tag under Vandalism. However, it could be an attack page, and anyway there is no indication of notability. It could be tagged under {{db-vandalism}} or {{db-attack}}, but probably {{db-bio}}.
Happy with any of those - would probably suggest A1, there's no context, but A7 makes sense
The Adopt-a-user Barnstar
By the way, I decided to award you this Barnstar as a show of my appreciation for your help with my Wikipedia career, teaching me to be a better and more fulfilled editor. Your adopt-a-user programme (as far as I've looked ahead) is informative and engaging, and a valuable asset for both your adoptees and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. I have noticed several of your past adoptees around, (User:Rcsprinter was the first one I noticed) and they have been notably among the better editors around. GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barstar, and great job overall! WormTT· (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
A (This was quite a hard question and I had to do a lot of extra reading, and I'm still not sure I get it) A policy is more greatly adhered to and has greater consensus, and some policies are absolutely compulsory, for legal reasons. As it says on the policy page, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow", whereas "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So they are not as strictly adhered to and do not have as great consensus (?). An essay is a work of prose written by a single editor or group of editors and represents a point of view that may be a minority view, and that has not necessarily gained consensus among the Wikipedia community. Some essays may not be completely serious, such as WP:WIKISPEAK.
2) Can Policy change?
A Yes. Consensus is the key to these things, so in a hypothetical example, if it was decided by a !vote of say, 500 to 80 that fair use images are unacceptable and all our images should be public domain, then that policy could change. Normally, though, no.
A Although it has elements of a bureaucracy, such as admins, 'crats, stewards and of course our constitutional monarch/benevolent dictator, I believe that (aside from the vast majority of the community not being involved in anything "bureaucratic") no true bureaucracy would have anything as wonderfully libertarian as WP:IAR as one of its core principles.--GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Good Job. I'm happy with all those answers. I'd say a guideline has as much consensus as a policy (something either has consensus or it doesn't), but in general policy trumps guideline, in that you should follow policy in almost every instance, and guidelines the majority of the time. There's not a lot of difference really. WormTT· (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, and you can't base consensus on votes (even if you say they are not votes!) - 500 "what he said" arguments against 80 strong arguments will likely lead to "no consensus" - something that recently happened on WT:V. WormTT· (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
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:
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.
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}}
03:36
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}}
13:33
Here, the template acts as though it were transcluded on the source page of this lesson, User:Worm That Turned/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. For more information on that, see the optional lesson on Advanced Templates.
Can I experiment here, or should I use my sandbox?--GilderienTalk|Contribs 10:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Whereever you like, once you get back. I'll be creating you a little template as part of the test. WormTT· (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I understand the first part, but not the second. Bear with me for a few days.--GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
So the triple curly braces are written inside the double braced template?--GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they are. The bit to get your head around is that the double brace can be used to call any page across, but is most commonly used for items in the Template namespace. Any parameters that you want to pass in go through and appear in the triple brace spots. WormTT· (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Worm That Turned/Adopt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I recommend that you get a username by clicking sign up. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. As a registered user, you gain the use of an appropriateusername of your choice, a personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you, the ability to start new pages, and much more. Also, your IP address, Worm That Turned/Adopt/Gilderien, will no longer be visible to other users.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! User:Gilderien (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Welcome...
Hello, Worm That Turned/Adopt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I recommend that you get a username by clicking sign up. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. As a registered user, you gain the use of an appropriateusername of your choice, a personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you, the ability to start new pages, and much more. Also, your IP address, Worm That Turned/Adopt/Gilderien, will no longer be visible to other users.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! GilderienTalk|Contribs 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Welcome...
Hello, Worm That Turned/Adopt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! User:Gilderien (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Welcome...
Hello, Worm That Turned/Adopt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! GilderienTalk|Contribs 20:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is a bit of fun, isn't it? One of the more difficult things to test.
Well, for this test, I've created you a nice new page at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Gilderien/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)
NB, to get (4) to work properly... you will have to edit the template. Bwhahahah :D
Yes. that's cheating. But I'll accept it... you're the first person to notice it (I realised it was possible when I created the template, was curious if all my adoptees would go down that route). WormTT· (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to edit the template to obtain the same effect, bear with me :) --GilderienTalk|Contribs 14:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.
To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).
What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.
The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
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: GilderienTalk|Contribs 19:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
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: removing an entire section randomly.
Removing massive sections is borderline vandalism, it often depends on what else the other person does, and their edit summary.
Diff 2: [3] Why you think this is vandalism: adding the word rawa in the middle of a sentence.
Yep. (Though it could be an editing test)
Diff 3: [4] Why you think this is vandalism: possible BLP issues, referring to a banker as a "dictator".
Oh, exactly, yes.
This didn't take long, annoyingly.--GilderienTalk|Contribs 19:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You probably have it already, but if not, may I recommend that you activate "Navigation Popups" in your preference gadgets, to view these diffs just by hovering over the link.--GilderienTalk|Contribs 19:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I do, makes my life easier!
Pre-empting the test, which I presume contains RC patrol;
Diff 4: [5] Why you think this is vandalism: removing referenced section .
As before, borderline.
Diff 5: [6] Why you think this is vandalism: unsourced, probably meant to be offensive.
Agreed
Diff 6: [7] Why you think this is vandalism: I think this speaks for itself.
It does, unfortunately.
Diff 7: [8] Why you think this is vandalism: Possibly libellous.
Don't know about libellous, but certainly vandalism.
Diff 8: [9] Why you think this is vandalism: Mass removal of content.
More interestingly what it was replaced by. Vandalism.
Diff 9: [10] Why you think this is vandalism: Racist attck.
Yep
Diff 10: [11] Why you think this is vandalism: Personal opinion.
Yep
Diff 11: [12] Why you think this is vandalism: Section blanking.
Would be borderine, but there's a pattern. Agreed.
Diff 12: [13] Why you think this is vandalism: Unexplained removal of content, from previous IP (above).
Would be borderine, but there's a pattern. Agreed.
Diff 13: [14] Why you think this is vandalism: BLP.
Vandalism.
Diff 14: [15] Why you think this is vandalism: Personal attack.
Yep.
Could you tell me if there are any that I have reverted in error, I am trying to err on the side of WP:AGF. Thanks.
--GilderienTalk|Contribs 21:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I saw this based on a comment you left on Worm's talk page and I wanted to comment on diff 9. It was certainly vandalism, and should have been reverted as such; however, it wasn't a racist remark. Nigahiga (pronounced nee-gah-hee-gah if you don't know the ipa) is a youtube personality. I just thought I'd leave the note, so if you happen to see it in the future, you know what to warn them for and you don't revert it if it has been used correctly.RyanVeseyReview me! 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
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
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.
A: Any edit that is deliberately designed to harm the encyclopaedia.
Yep, deliberately is what it's all about.
Q2) We currently have 4 levels of warnings, have a look at them if you like 1, 2,3,4 - along with an only warning. Do you think we need 4 levels?
A:Yes, because there are situations where all 4 are needed. However, this is not to say that I think that all 4 need to be used each time, I don't.
Good answer. I wonder do you think we could have more?
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:Personally, if I were an admin I would require at least 2, probably 1, 2, and 4, with 4 (or im) being a necessity. All 4 allows too much damage in the case of obvious vandalism.
Good answer again. As long as they've been warned and have reasonable time to stop - they should be blocked.
Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning?
A: If there is clear and obvious vandalism (such as replacing whole pages with racist abuse) that it would breach the Wednesbury clause of unreasonableness to AGF.
Yep. Happy with that.
Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings?
A: Yes, it could be taken as an acknowledgement that they have read and understood the warnings. However, if, for example, they received a level 2 warning and then do more vandalism, the warnings (3&4) should continue from the most recent warning in the history, not on the page.
That's a good way to look at things. If you force people to keep warnings on their page, you don't know how long they should keep it on for.
Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism?
A: I am sure that there are circumstances where it is deliberately designed to harm the 'pedia, but in the majority of cases it is not, and therefore should not (in my opinion) be classed as vandalism. (Interestingly, after I wrote this, I just checked Huggle, and copyvio is not a listed reason for reverts)
Well, if the person is aware of the copyright violation, and the harm that it can cause (previously warned perhaps?), then surely it's a deliberate attempt to harm the encyclopedia. If it's a first offence, no, but it can be.
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: NO! It would go against the principles of Wikipedia, the free encyclopædia that anyone can edit. However, I can see the point of semi-protection to prevent vandalism on BLPs for example.
On all BLPs? Seems rather against collaboration. I agree, real harm can be done to real living people, but that should just mean they're more watched. Forcing all IPs off is a step too far.
I didn't mean all BLPs, but it can be implemented well as a preventative measure where there is a history of vandalism.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 19:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Very good answers! Right I think we're about ready for a final test... WormTT(talk) 19:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay.....fortunately, its half term this week, so I'll have more time before exams again next week. :) --GilderienChat|List of good deeds 19:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You sure you wouldn't rather be revising ;) I can hold off! WormTT(talk) 19:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I probably should be :/ Well, my final exams on the 27th, but then I have prom and DofE, so maybe...hmm, I don't think I've actually got a continuous free week at home for literally two years (don't ask), I'll be around 2nd July to 7th, thats probably the best (and longest) time.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 19:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not a problem - this is just a formality now, but it's the only one which is timed. Give me a prod when you're ready and I'll post the final test for you :) WormTT(talk) 19:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Positively jubilant ;) WormTT(talk) 19:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Good...I'll send you a ping when I think I'm ready, also, (though I don't mind if you don't reply today, as you're not normally on this late), I was thinking of getting Church of Saint Oswald, King and Martyr, Oswaldkirk, on DYK today, up to GA standard, hopefully, any advice?--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 20:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Well done for getting it to DYK. I can't see anything obvious that could be added for GA, why not go for it?! WormTT(talk) 20:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that...by the way, do you know why this happened. The history shows, I think, me adding 12 bytes.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 20:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Anomalous result
No idea why. I think there's something weird going on with the watchlists since they put in the change for "recently viewed". I've seen other 0byte changes coming up too (which that was). WormTT(talk) 20:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thanks :) I thought I had disabled all those with some css, must not be working...I'll list it at the village pump.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 20:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
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.
The first option is to build new articles. You know an awful lot about how wikipedia works now, and what's notable and what's not, reliable sources and what not. How about you try and write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know. Did you know is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook") and the hook should appear on the front page in the Did you know section! I've managed to do a few so far, you can have a look at mine if you like I keep a record at User:Worm That Turned/DYK. You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.
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
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.
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.
WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do. As an example, I had a go at Category:Self-contradictory articles. When I got there, there were 400. I chipped away at them at about 10 per day, many were no longer contradictory or mis-tagged. They're now at around 70, a much more respectable number. Every little helps. I cannot stress this enough.
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.
Think there's stuff there 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. ;)
Go for it. Final test is hereWormTT(talk) 11:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
