User:WormTT/Adopt/LoganLopez
LoganLopez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Hello LoganLopez, and welcome to my adoption school. Your first assignment is below, and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Bmusician/Adoption, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. The tests in the assignments might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see! →Bmusician 09:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
First Assignment: The Five Pillars - Completed
|
|---|
What are the five pillars?[edit]The "five pillars" are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates.
The Core Content Policies[edit]The core content policies on Wikipedia are neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiablity. Editing from a neutral point of view (often abbreviated as "NPOV") is required on Wikipedia. Editing from a neutral point of view means representing unbiased and significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and giving due weight to all points of view. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable - so any information unsupported by a reliable source does not belong here. The personal experience or opinion of an editor also does not belong to Wikipedia. Reliable sources[edit]Wikipedia uses the word "source" for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic – so whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent. A source that is self-published is in general not considered reliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that. Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable, but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue! There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here. Discussion[edit]If there are any questions you have about this lesson, ask them! My job, as your adopter, is to help you with any problem you may have. If you don't have any questions that you need to ask, your next step is to take a short test regarding this lesson. If you are ready to take the test, simply tell me and I will hand it out to you. Test[edit]Here's your first test! This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There is no time limit - answer in your own words, and we'll talk about your answers. Please note that simple and short yes/no answers are not acceptable in this test, nor in any future tests.
|
Second Assignment: Wikiquette - Completed
| ||
|---|---|---|
What is wikiquette?[edit]Wikiquette basically means "wiki ettiquette", and is the etiquette of Wikipedia. I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Discussion[edit]Any questions or would you like to take the test? The test is pretty brief...consisting of only three questions! Test[edit]Have a look at the following conversation:
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
|
Lesson 3 - Copyright - complete
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Third Assignment: Copyright[edit]This is probably the most important assignment I'll give, because this is the only one where failure to adhere exactly according to policy will result in an indefinite block from editing the encyclopedia – pay attention. Glossary[edit]There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. Here is a glossary of the terms.
CC-BY-SA and GFDL[edit]On Wikipedia, you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL. In fact, if you notice, every time when you edit, the following text is underneath the editing window:
So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not. Image Copyright on Wikipedia[edit]Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. As I said before, any work that is submitted must be released under the CC-BY-SA License and the GFDL. There are two types of images on Wikipedia, free images and non-free images. Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere. Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of the non free content criteria in order to use them. What is fair use?[edit]
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:
When people refer to Commons on Wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to Wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since Commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to Commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias. For a full description of the policies and guidelines concerning fair use, read WP:FU. Discussion[edit]This is a pretty complex topic; is there anything you don't understand? Or are you ready for the test? What defines "low resolution for a picture" and how can you explain that you are not impacting the marketing role of the rights holder?
Test[edit]Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
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.
Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner 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
Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
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!)
Results[edit]All good, let me know when you're ready for the next module. I'm ready!--LoganLopez (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC) |
Lesson 4 - Dispute Resolution - Complete
|
|---|
Dispute resolution[edit]No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.  I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking. Simple Resolution[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected its most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there. Reports[edit]If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help. Remember: you could be wrong![edit]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?[edit]A lot of information but everything seems pretty straightforward I'm ready for the test.--LoganLopez (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Dispute resolution[edit]1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
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!
3) What is vandalism?
4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
Sorry for me taking so long on this one, I just got back into school and so I have been busy with all that sort of stuff so I really forgot about this completely.--LoganLopez (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Deletion Policies
[edit]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.
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
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.
Questions
[edit]Any questions or would you like to try the "Test" I would like the test--LoganLopez (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Deletion
[edit]1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
- A- PROD you could use for things like say a page that isn't really informational or important, but yet has some text and isn't exactly nonsense. AfD could be used as in one case I dealt with that there was suspicion that the page was a bit too shady from where it came from and also the company behind the software
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- A Wikipedian who is new and doesn't know all the rules so they make a page on a bio of themselves. Also some page that doesn't really show the significance the thing has.
I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them in mainspace?
3)First
- A- The first one can be deleted under G3
4)Second
- A- I'm trying a shot in the dark and my best guess is A7.
5)Third
- A- G1 obviously
6)Fourth
- A- A3
7)Fifth
- A- I can say with confidence that this one is A7.
I am sorry for taking so long to answer the test! When you gave it to me it was around the time school began so then I put it to the side and then kept on forgetting about it until now. It would either be that I remembered I needed to finish and I was busy or when I was free I would forget.--LoganLopez (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)