User:Gilderien/Adopt

User	Talk	Adoption HQ	Articles	To Do	Subpages	DYK	Awards

This is Adopt-a-User HQ for Gilderien and his adopted user(s). This is where lessons as well as important information will be posted for adoptees. Any questions relating to the lessons can be left on the talk page. This HQ has been ruthlessly pinched from User:Worm That Turned/Adopt.

Lesson Book
Feel free to read ahead, you can take these lessons at any rate you like. Optional lessions are included if I feel you need them.
Required lessons Test Introduction to Wikipedia Test Basics of Wikiquette Test Copyright on a Free Wiki Test Dispute Resolution Test Deletion Policies Test Policies and Consensus Test Templates Test Vandalism Test Working the encyclopedia FINAL EXAM
Optional lessons Test The basics of wiki-markup Test Copyright old text Templates for beginners
Adoptees should complete all required lessons to receive the link to the exam.
If you have a suggestion for a lesson not covered here, please contact Gilderien.

All pages in the adoption center

Adoption Pages

AddWittyNameHere (talk · contribs)

Hi AddWittyNameHere, 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:Gilderien/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:Gilderien/Adopt/AddWittyNameHere. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Momonaco and I would like to apply to be adopted and go through your adoption school. I would like to be able to edit Wikipedia pages on History, Geography, Languages and general UK topics. As you can see from this post, I'm a complete beginner and need help to get me started. I hope I haven't made a complete mess of this page --Momonaco (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The 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.

User:Jimbo Wales

The Five Pillars

One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for.

• Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
• Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
• Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
• Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
• Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.

Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.

How articles should be written

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

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

Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

Questions?

Any questions or would you like to try the test?

I would like to take the test, yes. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Five Pillars

This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. There's no time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?

A - No, not unless this friend knows this from a reliable source. Someone you know saying or claiming something is not a reliable source. Said friend pointing you to an article in a newspaper which states the same can be reliable, though if they're the only source of this information, it's probably still better to wait until you can find a second source stating the same. Furthermore, said information would in no case belong on the disambiguation page you linked me to.

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 - On the newspaper's article, only if I can find other, reliable sources that are NOT original research stating the same. Depending on several factors, it may still count as non-notable, depending on the kind of coverage it gets. On the racism article, only if I can both find said sources and have reason to assume this is notable enough to make said page, say, if a burst of violent reactions leaving people dead, maimed or injured is the result of said cartoon.

Good.

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- Not unless you can find reliable sources connecting these matters together in a non-trivial way, such as research connecting the consumation of butternut squashes to baldness or allergic reactions causing baldness.

Yes, to add it without sources would be a classic case of WP:OR.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?

A - Regarding The Troubles, depends on what specifically it's a source of. It can be reliable, but most likely won't be NPOV.

It depends on specific context, of course. If it's to establish that The Troubles are real, it's a yes. If it's to establish that certain laws have been passed or decisions made on the UK side of the conflict, yes. If it's to establish who is "right", whether specific actions are terrorism or "normal" warfare, etc.? Very much no. If it's to establish the UK/British opinion of that, potential yes.

As to BBC as a source on its rival, or basically ANYTHING as a source on its rival, no. Far and far too much risk of POV. (Can be used as a source to establish there is a rivalry in some cases, though.)

In that case, what sources could you use for ITV? Everything is either a rival or ITV themselves.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?

A- Not very, no. Sort-of acceptable, but only if not the primary source of an article, there is no reason to doubt it IS the official Facebook page, the claims are not extra-ordinary and are specifically related to the subject. Basically, if it is to provide a source for the fact that they have ice-cream with a specific taste, sure. If it's to establish the fact that they're the best-tasting ice-cream in the world? Very much no.

I think you have this one correct - basically Facebook is not a reliable source, so if there is anything on there worth including, (such as flavours) it should be available elsewhere, even if it's on their own website.

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, because it's a forum post and said supposed forum official is not talking about him/herself but their supposed employees. On top of that, it would be hard to verify if said official is in any way or form an official at all.

Good. The "forum official" is probably a volunteer and not professionally connected with the newspaper.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music-related article?

A - In the article, yes, because that reeks of promotion or spam. In the sources, depends on what it's sourcing. If it's to establish that a song exists or was published on a certain album or by a certain artist, it could be used. (Though I strongly suspect that music articles having to rely on Amazon or iTunes as source to prove the subject of the article exists are likely not notable enough to exist in the first place.)

There could be some information that wouldn't be covered in secondary sources, such as track lengths, etc. but yes, we must be careful to avoid being promotional in our articles.

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 - A source? No issue, assuming it's not used to "prove" an exceptional claim and it's not used to insert promotional language into an article or make it POV. The primary or only source? Yes, that would be an issue.

Indeed, as above, although in moderation for uncontroversial information it might be appropriate.

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 - If I'm the editor saying it's bronze, yes. Otherwise, very much no. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof/sources. Claiming the sky is bronze very much is a. an exceptional claim, b. a fringe theory or c. trolling/vandalism.

Precisely. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds an exceptional claim. You may wish to read Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue.

Sorry for the late response, by the way. Was a tad busy for a while and didn't immediately notice your edit. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) Your answers were very good, and I have added comments to some of your answers. I notice you are using the new Visual Editor, how is it? I ended up disabling it because I found it much harder to use than wiki-markup, but I'd be interested to know how a new user finds it. I have added the next lesson. Also, you don't need to worry about it being "late" - you can complete these in as much or as little time as you wish. I presume you have added it to your watchlist?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquette - Complete

Wikiquette

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

I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.

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

How's the soup? --[[User:John]] :It's great!! --[[User:Jane]] ::I made it myself! --[[User:John]] Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]] :I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]

How's the soup? --John It's great!! --Jane I made it myself! --John Let's move the discussion to Talk:Soup. --Jane I tend to disagree. --George

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

Questions

Any questions?

No questions, ready to take the test.

Regarding the previous points, namely "In that case, what sources could you use for ITV? Everything is either a rival or ITV themselves." I strongly doubt that everything would be a rival or ITV itself, but even if so, for some things, ITV itself can be used, for other matters, someone who is less directly a rival of ITV, as in, something not in the exact same business (TV Network) in the same region (UK), especially a rival ITV wasn't -created- to rival. Newspapers, TV Networks outside the UK or whose main area of service lies outside the UK, etc.

Regarding the visual editor, it's not that great. I only use it to make minor changes to what I've said and such - correcting typos, etc.

Yeah, I have now added this page to my watchlist.

Ok. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) Here is the test ...--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's probably the first time I actually forgot to. Of course, that just has to be in response to a post reminding me to sign, eh? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it was a pure accident :p --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hence the edit summary of ironic? :P AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I failed to indent after giving a lesson on how to indent properly.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that is ironic. Let's see if I can use the outdent correctly as well... AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Test

Have a look at the conversation below:

What's the best car in the world? -- Rod Probably something German or Japanese. -- Freddie Like what -- Rod's Mate I dunno, something like Volkswagon? -- Freddie Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Postion:A What do you want it for? -- Jane Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Position:B

Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

1) Position A?

A- Rod's Mate.

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-This reminds me very strongly of the issue Afadsbad I recently came across. The answer is, or should be, no, not if the only clue is them being awfully competent with templates. That's not exactly assuming good faith, is it?

(Of course, assuming good faith still ought to be done reasonably. If said low-edit-count editor is not only amazingly competent with templates, but also with all other wiki mark-up, edits articles in the exact same areas as a recently blocked user and does so in a similarly disruptive way as said recently blocked user, that would be different.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

All good, and a perceptive answer to the final question. It is more about behaviour than abilities, as those could easily be learned elsewhere, but if a new user immediately wrote a DYK (or asked for adoption ;-) ) that would be more suspicious. I shall put the next lesson up.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Depending on what you consider immediately, I suppose I kind of fall under that, eh? Guess that's what happens when one spends so long lurking around, makes me look more competent than I am. :P AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright - Complete

Copyright

Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.

Glossary

There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.

Term	Explaination
Attribution	The identification of work by an author
Copyright symbol	© - used to show work is under copyright
Creative Commons	Creative Commons is an organisation that provides licensing information aimed at achieving a mutual sharing and flexible approach to copyright.
Compilation	A new work created as a combination of other works, which may be derivative works.
Derivative work	A work which is derived from another work. (Eg a photograph of a painting)
Disclaimer	A statement which limits rights or obligations
FACT	Federation Against Copyright Theft
Fair use	Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country.
Copyright infringement	Use of work under copyright without permission
Intellectual property	Creations of the mind, under which you do have rights.
License	The terms under which the copyright owner allows his/her work to be used.
Non-commercial	Copying for personal use - not for the purpose of buying or selling.
Public domain	Works that either cannot be copyrighted or the copyright has expired

Image Copyright on Wikipedia

What you can upload to commons

Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.

Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under theWP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution.

So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia.

1. Free images
2. Non-free images

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

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

In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations

• If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
• If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
• If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)

1. There must be no free equivalent
2. We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
3. Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
4. Must have been published elsewhere first
5. Meets our general standards for content
6. Meets our specific standards for that area
7. Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
8. Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
9. Can only be used in article space
10. 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 consideredreplaceable fair use and so cannot be used on Wikipedia.
• 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, and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia.
• 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, take a copy of their logo, and upload it to Wikipedia. This fair use isallowable, 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. So, if it meets all the other criteria as well, it can be used on Wikipedia.

Commons

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

Copyright and text

So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see how it applies to text. All the principles are the same - you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right there

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not. Got it? Good.

Questions

This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.

No questions that pop-up in mind right now, though I shall let you know if/when I do. Complex, yes, but nonetheless worded clear enough that I understand it in theory, and as I have yet to actually -work- with it, my understanding of the theory is all I can judge right now. The test will prove if I'm right, I suppose. So bring the test on. :P

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Test

Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?

A-Mostly. It is certainly the intention, but non-free images used under fair use rationale will (along with a number of similar matters) of course not suddenly turn free because they're on Wikipedia. Beyond that, for obvious reasons you should not copy-and-paste information found on Wikipedia without proper referencing

Pretty good.

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?

A- When said image is a free image, so not an image used under fair use rationale, etc.

What do you mean by "free"?

Free as defined in the whole explanation above; namely, "[f]ree images are those [...] can even be modified and used elsewhere."

Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?

A-No, not to Commons for sure. It is released under a licence, not actually free. While that technically would be possible to upload, Commons is for use across all languages on Wikipedia, this licence seems to be US-specific. On top of that, it looks like the licence might be too restrictive for Wikimedia/-pedia, anyway.

Since Wikimedia is based in the US, it is its license there that matters. The license is too restrictive for Wiki(m/p)edia, you are correct. Would you upload an image under the CC/BY/SA license, or would it have to be PD?

Ah, I see. Good to know. I assume the regional licenses still matter for the wikis in the corresponding languages?

Also, I assume that with PD you mean Public Domain? If so, either would be possible.

Actually, they don't. All our content is hosted in florida.

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-No, because it is a composition of non-free images.

And so a derivative work. Good.

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?

A- Most likely not, unless there is a very good reason to assume that no free equivalent can be found or made (such as it being a press image of a very specific, once-in-a-lifetime event in which the Pope is strongly involved) and then it would have to be actually fitting for the article - say, an article about the Pope's role in said event would likely be possible under the fair use rationale, the general article about the event possibly, the article about the Pope probably not and the article about the Catholic Church in general certainly not)

Really good. I hadn't thought of those possibilities.

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?

A- Assuming no free equivalent image can be found or made (there no being (the possibility of) a free equivalent is fairly likely when it's of a prisoner on death row and we're looking for specifically an image of that prisoner, but less so when it's about needing the image of a prisoner on death row, even less when it's about needing the image of a prisoner and getting an actually free image should be absolutely no problem when it's, say, about Homo Sapiens), yes, if the image is actually fitting for the article. See points above, both Q5 and the earlier part of Q6

Correct. Whilst you could get away with fair-use for this, it has to be used on a relevant page and the image needs a new rationale for each page it is added to.

Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA. What do you do?

A- Double-check if there really is no evidence to be found. If not, check if this issue has been raised before and not addressed for a long(er) period of time, or if there even has been a removal of copy-vio tag without actual fixing. That, especially if it's a matter of the whole article, rather than a section, being a copy-paste, can be a reason for a (speedy) delete, especially if there's also likely COI, NPOV issues, Promotional language, reasonable doubt about it being notable or not, etc.

If there are no other serious problems, and it hasn't been tagged before and especially if it's only parts that are directly copied, I would see if it's something I know enough of that I can fix it myself within reasonable time. If not, I'd slap a copy-vio tag on it and if it falls under a Portal, possibly alert the Portal that I could use help with said article.

Ok. I think you mean WikiProject rather than portal, but your suggestions seem reasonable. You could also consider emailing the company and asking them to donate the text (WP:DCM).

Yup, couldn't find the correct world and as Portal seemed to be closest, I took that one, hoping you'd figure out what I meant.

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?

A-From external source to Wikipedia, multiple issues regarding copyright and proper referencing.

From one Wikipedia article to another, yes, because it seems highly unlikely that one article needs exactly the same text with the same focus on the same points as another. (Sounds like a primary candidate for merging then.)

As a page-move, yes, because it would obscure the history of said article.

If it's a section of an article that gets an article of its own, or a section that gets moved from one article to another (after discussing this, preferably) less so, assuming it's the source, not the reading text, that gets copied, though I suspect that it would still require sizeable rewriting on both sides of the move and might result in messed up wiki mark-up.

Good. You may wish to peruse WP:HISTMERGE and note that when copying content within WP you need to note in the edit summary which page it came from to preserve attribution.

Thank you, will check that one out.

Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)

A-File:BarbedWireLuckyLukecomic.jpg

All good.

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, in depth answers. I have posted some questions next to a couple of your responses.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear so. Answered said questions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.

Simple Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia dispute resolution process

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

Assistance

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

Third opinion

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

Mediation

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

Request for Comment

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

Arbitration

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

Reports

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

Remember: you could be wrong!

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

Any questions?

No, I have no questions. For some strange reason, a fair amount of the reading I've been doing on Wikipedia except for actual articles seems to have been talk pages and from there to RfCs, Vandalism, block logs, sockpuppet investigations, etc., so I suppose I know fairly well what not to do.

Beyond that, it really looks like common sense and etiquette to me. Getting angry gets you nowhere; attacks ad hominem don't make any point other than showing you're capable of immature behaviour. Refuting a point without explaining why is essentially the same as saying "this is how it is and you must believe it because I say it", which might fit for kindergarten but doesn't belong on an encyclopedia.

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?

A- Be bold in editing, so long as you believe the edit improves the article, but if someone disagrees and reverts said edit, you should not revert their revert and end up edit-warring, but instead discuss on the talk page and come to an agreement of some kind. If that doesn't work, don't start edit-warring after all, but instead use the appropriate dispute resolution process(es)

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?

A- You don't win an edit war, because edit warring is something you should refrain from. Instead, said editors should try to resolve the dispute on the talk page instead or seek outside help (as in dispute resolution, not as in meatpuppetry) of one of the many kinds.

3) What is vandalism?

A- Malicious/disruptive edits made deliberately in bad faith and which thus are neither constructive or improving nor meant to be. This can take many forms (blanking, adding nonsense, adding false statements, etc.)

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?

A- Editor Assistance: Talking to an experienced editor and gain advice from someone without them (necessarily) stepping in.

Third Opinion: Getting the third opinion of someone (or more than one someone) uninvolved and thus (more) neutral with the explicit expectation of them stepping in.

Request for comment: Drawing the community (and thus likely more people than with Third Opinion) discussion to the page. (Request for comment on user requires at least two users to have the same problem with one specific user and rarely is needed)

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. One point I forgot to mention - it is still edit-warring even if there is only one revert a day or less - people can and have been blocked for slow-burning wars. Would you like to go on to the deletion policies lesson next or the "basics of wiki-markup"?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Danw2016 (talk · contribs)

Hi Danw2016, 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:Gilderien/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:Gilderien/Adopt/Danw2016. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see.

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

User:Jimbo Wales

The Five Pillars

One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for.

• Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
• Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
• Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
• Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
• Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.

Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.

How articles should be written

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

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

Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

Questions?

Any questions or would you like to try the test? I have no questions yet, I think I am ready for the test. Now, it it okay to talk here, or should a talk page be created?Danw2016 (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)danw2016

You can ask questions here, on my talk page, or on the talk page of this page, here. Here is the test. P.S. if you type ~~~~ at the end of a message you don't need to add you name as well--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Five Pillars

This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. There's no 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 -

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 -

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-

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?

A -

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?

A-

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-

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music-related article?

A -

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 -

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 -

Hey ,i would like to be adopted and i am new , please adopt me. thank you,

micheal.j