This is Adopt-a-User HQ for Adam mugliston 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 pinched from User:Worm That Turned/Adopt with his acknowledgement.
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.

## RexRowan (talk · contribs)

RexRowan is currently:
Offline
Update: OnBusyWork/ClassOff

Lesson 1 - How to Edit - Wiki Markup

### How to Edit - Wiki Markup

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!

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 Italic text
Internal, or "Wiki" link [[Link Title]] Two square brackets on either side of the link Link Title OR Wikipedia OR User:Adam mugliston/Adopt Pages that do not exist appear in red (Hence the name "red link"), blue if they do exist, and in bold if they link to the page they are on.
Internal link, but this time with a twist [[Link Title|displayed text]] An internal link, with a pipe (usually found under the backspace) separating the title and the text to be displayed The free encyclopedia By inserting a pipe, you can make different text appear. Clicking on the link to the left will bring you to Wikipedia.
External link [http://www.example.org link title] A single square bracket on either side of the URL and title. The URL and link title are separated by a space. link title 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.
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. Media:Example.ogg OR
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 [itex]Insert formula here[/itex] Two math "tags", a technical term (not really) for two angle brackets surrounding the word "math". A closing tag is indicated with a slash. ${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$
${\displaystyle a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}}$
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 :(
Ignore wiki formatting <nowiki>[[Insert]] '''non-formatted''' ''text'' here</nowiki> Two "nowiki" tags. [[Insert]] '''non-formatted''' ''text'' here This code I've been using throughout the table to show you the code. Any wikimarkup inside a nowiki tag is ignored and displayed as written.
Signature with time stamp --~~~~ The operative bit of the code is four tildes (that squiggly bit next to the 1 key). The two dashes don't do anything. -- 21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 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.
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.
Create a redirect #REDIRECT [[Insert title]] The phrase "#REDIRECT" followed by a wikilink to the target page. Preview "Acidic", a redirect page 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.
Picture gallery <gallery>

Image:Example.png|Caption1
Image:Example.png|Caption2
</gallery>

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. If you would like to learn how to make and use tables, please tell me and I will organise a lesson for you.
Add a reference (footnote) blah blah<ref>Reference</ref> Two "ref" tags around the reference text. blah blah[1] 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.
Add a duplicate reference blah blah<ref name="copy">Duplicate</ref> blah blah<ref name="copy"/> The duplicate reference has a slash at the end of the tag. blah blah[2] blah blah[2]

#### The references

(That was a level 4 header, with four equals signs)

1. ^ Reference
2. ^ a b Duplicate

#### Other stuff

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

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:

This code Produces this
:Lorem
:*Ipsum
:*#Dolor
:*#Sit
:*#*Amet
:*#Consectetur
:::Edit
Lorem
• Ipsum
1. Dolor
2. Sit
• Amet
3. Consectetur

Edit

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 2 - Five Pillars
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 editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.

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

#### Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

#### Questions?

Any questions or would you like to try the test?

#### Five Pillars - TEST

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 - I can. It is general knowledge, but I need to confirm it with the original source which is the company website.
F - Actually, it's not general knowledge at all, but you are correct that you need to get a source. 1 mark

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. I can not put materials in Wikipedia based on my personal opinion.
F - Perfect 1 mark

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- No. The article is original research and may not be reliable source.
F - I understand the point you are getting that, but the answer I am looking for is that you cannot mention the similarity in the two graphs. ½ mark

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 - Yes. I would consider BBC News as a reliable source. And it is more reliable because it's a more established news reporting organization than ITV.
F - Perfect 1 mark

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

A- No, it is an outreach outlet and social page. I would go to its main website for confirmation.
F - Exactly. Never mention Facebook, Twitter etc.. Whenever I review articles for creation, if I see a site like Facebook I immediately decline. 1 mark

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. Forum is a matter of personal opinion from the 'official'. It does not represent the official statement from the newspaper.
F - Perfect 1 mark

7) Q - Would you have any problem with beerbarrels2u.co.uk being used in a beer related article?

A - No, it is advertising.
F - Hmmm, Again, I see your point, but, because they are selling the beer, they will know exactly what they are selling, so it could be used. However, both arguments are just about acceptable. ½ mark

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. The opinion of the company can be biased and partial. I shall seek a third party reliable source on it.
F - The company is unlikely to be biast and even if, you can adjust the information that you put into the article to be neutral, so it could be used. 0/1 mark

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 - Yes, I will go find a text book or online material by a established publisher in the science field to find out the correct answer, and I will cite the reference.
F - Perfect 1 mark

Total: 7/9 marks, 78% PASS

Lesson 3 - Wikiquette

### Wikiquette

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 covered this in my basics of markup language lesson. 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.

Any questions?

### 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
F - Perfect 1 mark

2) Position B?

A- Rod
F - Perfect 1 mark

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?

A- I would assume good faith to start with and try to figure out the motive of the user, he/she might just be an experienced editor with good will. But I will put this user on the Watch-list and report him/her as a possible Sock puppet if he/she uses it as a Single purpose account/Uncivil editing/Planned Vandalism/Engaging in an edit war/Vote-stacking/multiple accounts from the same IP and user.
F - Pretty good. The editor may be an experienced editor with a new/second account or a new specific one for a particular task 1 mark

TOTAL: 3/3 marks 100% PASS

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
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
Fair use Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country.
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

What you can upload to commons

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

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

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

Free images 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 considered replaceable 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 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. 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.

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.

Lesson 4a - Copyright on Wikipedia

#### Copyright on a free Wiki

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
• 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 logo
Public 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.)
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!

### Plagiarism

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.

#### 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, however I myself am not an expert in this field, so if your question is more complex I may not be able to answer it. If so, I will direct you to someone who knows their copyright well. Don't worry, you're unlikely to come across much of copyright, so don't worry too much.

### Test

Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?

A- The content is free in use apart from Fair Use ones. But obviously the maintenance would cost money.
F - Yep, that's generally the idea. Maintenance costs money but you don't pay so it's free to you. From the copyright side you're spot on. 2 marks

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?

A- When the picture is available under a free license.
F - Yes, or at the written permission of the author. 1 mark

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

A- No. It is non-commercial but it may be for personal use, so it may not be for all purposes and free to be adapted.
F - Perfect. 1 mark

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. It violates the minimal usage clause of the Non-free content criteria. Minimal usage: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
F - Perfect. The covers are copyrighted and they are still being viewed, so they can't. Well done. 1 mark

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

A- No. It violates No free equivalent. Because anyone can take a photo of the Pope. Although the image can be used if the photographer gives a suitable license but a free image would be easy to find.
F - Perfect. 1 mark

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

A- The image will be copyrighted to the media source so it cannot be uploaded under free content, if there's no free equivalent, it could be considered under fair use. We must respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
F - Perfect. 1 mark

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

A- I would notify the writer to re-write or delete it. Or I can rewrite it myself in my own words with inline citations and references to avoid falling foul of plagiarism.
F - Yes, you would have to rewrite it immediately or delete due to copyright violation. Immediately is very important here. ½/1 mark

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

A- The CC-BY-SA license requires attribution, cut-and-paste will lose the history of who wrote what part of the article it will mean that Wikipedia can't give the authors recognition if the text is used elsewhere.
F - Exactly. 1 mark

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:Harvard Wreath Logo 1.svg]]
F - Yep. 1 mark

TOTAL 9½/10 marks 95% PASS

Lesson 5 - Dispute resolution

### Dispute resolution

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

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

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

#### Simple Resolution

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

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

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

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

#### 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.

### Dispute resolution

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

A- The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a method for reaching consensus. It can be useful for identifying objections to edits, breaking deadlocks, and keeping discussion moving forward. Care and diplomacy should be exercised.
F - You have shown understanding of the objective of BRD, but not of how it's that. The answer I was really looking for is: One person makes good faith edit, Second person reverts as does not agree, the two discuss and reach consensus. ½/1 mark

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. If the editors' behaviours do not fit 3RR exemptions criteria and other revert rules, editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake.

F - Perfect. 1 mark

3) What is vandalism?

A- Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism.

Types of vandalism: Abuse of tags/Account creation, malicious/Avoidant vandalism/Blanking, illegitimate/Copyrighted material, repeated uploading of/Edit summary vandalism/Gaming the system/Hidden vandalism/Image vandalism/Link vandalism/Page creation, illegitimate/Page lengthening/Page-move vandalism/Silly vandalism/Sneaky vandalism/Spam external linking/Talk page vandalism/Template vandalism/User and user talk page vandalism/Vandalbots

Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block.

F - Perfect, but are you sure you didn't copy and paste? 1 mark

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

A- Editor assistance: Experienced editor offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation but not necessarily stepping in.

Third Opinion: Uninvolved editor to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute.

Request for Comment: Editor in dispute draw community discussion to the page. It is likely to draw a larger section of the community in than a 3O request. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken, an editor can 'Request comment on a user'. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified.

F - Perfect, RFC one seems copied and pasted.... 3 marks

TOTAL 5½/6 marks 92% PASS

The information you have written seems a bit copied and pasted. Don't take offence, but I would like to make sure this is your own work. If this is copied and pasted, I will give you an opportunity to rewrite. If not, you have done amazingly.

Lesson 6 - Deletion Policies

#### Deletion Policies

While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion.

Wikipedia has three methods to delete pages. The first, and by far fastest, is the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. These criteria depict what content absolutely cannot be kept on Wikipedia for whatever reason and must be removed immediately. The most commonly used ones are as follows:

• General criteria 1 (G1) or G2 - Patent Nonsense and/or Test pages. Commonly created by new accounts, these have no meaningful purpose at all. Mark these pages with the templates {{db-nonsense}} or {{db-test}}.
• G3 - Vandalism. Obvious junk that you can understand (and so isn't nonsense) but obviously isn't intended to be the least bit helpful. This includes redirects that get made as a result of someone moving pages around disruptively. Mark these with {{db-vandalism}}
• G4 - Recreation of deleted material. If a page is deleted through an XfD debate (see below) and it gets re-created essentially identically to the previous version, it can be speedied under G4. This does not apply to pages deleted under any other method (although another speedy criteria may fit and can be used), or pages that have been "userfyed" (see below). Tag these with {{db-repost}}
• G10 - Attacks. If a page is created with the apparently singular purpose of attacking someone, it's a candidate for deletion. Mark these with {{db-attack}}.
• G11 - Advertising. If a page is so blatantly advertising (for anything, even a person) that it really doesn't serve any other purpose at all, it can be deleted. {{db-ad}}
• G12 - Copyright violations, or "copyvio". If a page meets ALL of these criteria, it should be deleted immediately for GFDL compliance. Tag these with {{db-copyvio|website}}
• Direct copy of a non-GFDL-compatible website
• No non-copyrighted content in history
• All copyvio content added at once by one user
• No assertion of permission or fair use, or that content is public domain or freely available.
• Article criteria 1 or 3 (A1 or A3) - Little to no context OR no content. For articles that provide no useful information about the subject, are completely empty, or consist only of links elsewhere. Note that an article can be as short as a single sentence but still qualify as a stub. Mark with {{db-empty}}.
• A7 - Non-notable subject. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not establish why it is notable. If this is somewhat controversial, consider another deletion method. Mark with {{db-bio}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-band}}, or {{db-web}}.

Whenever you mark a page for speedy deletion, it's usually nice to notify the author. Each of the speedy deletion tags shows the proper warning to use - just copy that code and paste it on their user talk page. You are not required to do this, but it usually helps alleviate some confusion on the part of the author.

If you are interested in speedy deletion, I have an 'Advanced Speedy Deletion' lesson, where you can learn more categories. Let me know, if you would like to take that lesson.

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

Any questions or would you like to try the "Test"

### Deletion

1) Describe a situation you would:

a) use a WP:PROD
A If the article doesn't fall under a CSD but needed to be deleted for certain.
F Good. When there is not much doubt, yet not for CSD, Prod. 1 mark
b) use WP:AfD?
A If someone contested the deletion by removing the PROD template, and I still think the article should be deleted, I can open a debate at WP:AFD.
F Yep, pretty much. When there are arguments both way and a consensus is needed, AfD. 1 mark

2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :)

A If the subject does not have evidence to back up its claim, this including the author made up a claim or exaggerate the claim's importance or notability and there's nowhere to verify the claim by research.
F Pretty much. 1 mark

I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them?

3)First

A A7. It's about non-notable a person, so I will mark it with db-bio.
F Yep. Well done. 1 mark

4)Second

A It's another A7. But I'd probably PROD it first and see if the author will respond to it and add notable sources for the claims, just in case he/she hasn't finished editing it.
F Yep. Well done. 1 mark

5)Third

A It looks jibrish, so G1 db-nonsense.
F Yes, it is gibberish. 1 mark

6)Fourth

A It's a A1. It is poorly written, referenced and has little content. It seems that the article is part of the story about Plymouth Blitz and the memorial, so I will either rewrite it and leave it as a stub or merge it into the Plymouth article.
F Yes, merge is what I'm looking for, then probably Prod, but I can see why you put A1, so ok. ¾/1 mark

7)Fifth

A It's A7. The person has no notability.
F It's more of an A1, as there is no context for him, but fair enough. ¾/1 mark

TOTAL 7½/8 marks 94% PASS

Lesson 7 - Policy and Consensus

### Consensus

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

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

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

### Community

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

### Policy and guidelines

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

### Ignore all rules

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

### Questions

Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?

### Policy

1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?

A A Policy is a law or standard that must be followed.

A guideline is some agreed essential points formed by the consensus that need to be kept in mind by the editor but should be treated with common sense and can be questioned, some occasional exceptions can apply when necessary.

An essay is opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, but it's not formally agreed by the wider consensus community yet.

F - Perfect well done. 3 marks

2) Can Policy change?

A Yes. Policy can be proposed to change if the need is strong and clear, new policy shall be enforced once it is promoted by the consensus.
F - Perfect. 1 mark

3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?

A No. Although Wikipedia has many elements of a bureaucracy, it is not governed by statute. It's all about the betterment of Wikipedia, not the power of the editing community members.
F - Exactly. We can do what we like within reason. 1 mark

TOTAL 5/5 marks 100% PASS

Lesson 8 - Templates

### Templates

Templates allow you to post large sections of text or complicated sections of code while only typing a few characters. Templates work similar to regular links, but instead of [[double square brackets]], you use {{curly braces}}. To call a template, just type the title of the template between the double braces. You don't need to include the "Template:" prefix; the MediaWiki software automatically searches within the Template namespace for what you're looking for. Only if the page you're looking for is in a different namespace do you need to specify it. See below:

What I type What appears Comments
{{user en}}
 en This user is a native speaker of the English language.
This calls Template:User en. All content there (that is marked to be included, see below) appears where I type the template code.
{{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}}
 This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.
When I specify the User: namespace, the userbox I have at that location appears. Thus, a template does not have to be in the Template: namespace to work.
{{User DYK}}
 This user has written or expanded articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page.
I get a {{{1}}} where a number should appear. This is due to the fact that I did not specify a parameter in that template.

One template you can use to welcome new users, Template:W-basic, has several parameters which can customize its appearance. Most of those parameters are named, in that you have to specify to the template what the name of the parameter is when you use it. {{w-basic|anon=true}} sets the parameter "anon" to "true", which generates a message directed towards anonymous users. The advantage to named parameters is that they can be placed in any order, but they must be spelled exactly right or they will not work. The template also uses an unnamed parameter, one which does not have to be specified when it is put into use. Templates automatically assign a numerical name to unnamed parameters when they are used, starting with "1". {{w-basic|message}} sets the unnamed parameter "1" to "message", which is what that parameter is used for in that template. The userbox above can specify the number of states visited with that same unnamed parameter. Unnamed parameters must be in sequential order to work properly, unless you force them to be out of order by using syntax such as {{template|2=foo|1=bar}}. Using "1=, 2=" is also required if the parameter has a = anywhere within (occasionally the case with some external links).

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

Code What it does
{{{1}}} Causes a parameter "1" to display at that location.
{{{name}}} Causes a parameter "name" to display at that location. (Calling the template {{Template|name=Worm}} will cause "Worm" to display at that location)
{{{1|foo}}} Sets a default value "foo" for parameter "1", which prevents the parameter from displaying as it does in the userbox above. This can be blank: {{{1|}}}
<includeonly>foo</includeonly> Causes the text "foo" to only appear when the template is called. It will not appear on the template page, or in previews when editing the template. As a result, any code included in these tags will not be executed until the template is called.
<noinclude>foo</noinclude> Removes the text "foo" from the template. Documentation (notes on how to use a template) is always included with these tags so that it is not called along with the template.
{{{1|lorem ipsum}}} <noinclude>dolor sit amet</noinclude> <includeonly>etc...</includeonly> When this template is called, it will display parameter 1 first, followed by "etc...". If parameter 1 is not defined, the template will display "lorem ipsum etc..."

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

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

{{CURRENTTIME}} 08:12 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}} 12:34 Here, the template acts as though it were transcluded on the source page of this lesson, User:Adam mugliston/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 below.

Lesson 8a - Templates extra

### Templates for Dummies (and you're not a dummy, so it should help)

Templates are scary but they're also extremely powerful, and so they're worth having as a module. They do involve a little bit of coding, but I'm sure you can manage a little bit of coding... just a little little tiny bit?

Right, well, now you're thinking about doing some coding, let's look at where they're used on wikipedia. Chances are, you've already used them. Anything you put in curly braces {{ }} is a template. You may have only used them through copying and pasting, but there's a lot that you might have used. {{Reflist}}, {{Infobox}}, {{Category}} and {{Userbox}} are very common ones, along with templated warnings.

#### What is a template?

So what is a template? Well, it's bit of "wikimarkup" (wikipedia code) which can be used on other pages. You have the option of "transcluding" it (putting the template in curly braces, {{TEMPLATE_NAME}} ) or "substituting" it (putting it in curly braces, with the key word subst {{subst:TEMPLATE_NAME}}). If you transclude it to a page, any updates to the template will show on the page - and if you look at the wikimarkup (ie press edit), you will only ever see the curly braces and template name. If you substitute it, you will effectively be copying the template output to the page at the point you press save. Further updates to the template will be ignored, and you will be able to edit the markup on the page.

#### Where do I find templates?

Wikipedia has a specific namespace for templates. Any template which is used by many people should be held there, under "Template:", so for example the reflist template is held under Template:Reflist. If you use curly braces around reflist ({{Reflist}}) the clever wiki software looks at it and relises that it should look in the template namespace.

However, you can over-ride this, by telling it specifically which namespace you want to look in. For example, I could hold a template in my userspace - many users do, however I am not one of them, so here is an example of someone else's: }}User:Worm That Turned/Welcome}}. The markup sees that it should be looking in the User namespace, and goes there.

#### How do I write templates?

The basics of templates is just the same as any other page. You can have a text only template, so that the same text can be used on many pages. But that's not where the real power comes in. The real power comes with parameters.

##### Un-named Parameters

The most basic parameter is {{{1}}} (note the three curly braces - not two!). When you use {{{1}}} in a template, it will accept the first un-named parameter passed in. Confused? How about an example?

Say I create a template called Template:Magic with the following code.

```"This magic trick was first performed by {{{1}}}"
```

I could call it by putting {{Magic|Adam}} and the output would be

"This magic trick was first performed by Adam"

You can go on to add other un-named parameters {{{2}}},{{{3}}} and so on. And in this case Adam would be used everywhere a {{{1}}} is shown.

##### Named Parameters

We also have named parameters. They are used the same way as unnamed parameters, but when called you have to say which parameter you are calling. I have a feeling you're looking confused again. Let's do another example.

Using the same template as I created about, Template:Magic I could change the parameter to {{{name}}}

```"This magic trick was first performed by {{{name}}}"
```

I would then call it by putting {{Magic|name=Adam}} and the output would be

"This magic trick was first performed by Adam"

Useful for when you're calling many different parameters, say on an infobox.

##### Default values

Any parameter can have a default value, ie a value if no parameter is passed in. The syntax is {{{1|default value}}}.

Using the same template as I created about, Template:Magic I could add a default value...

```"This magic trick was first performed by {{{1|someone very clever}}}"
```

I would then call it by putting {{Magic}} and the output would be

"This magic trick was first performed by someone very clever"

##### includeonly and noinclude

There are two very useful tags that you can use to change how things appear. includeonly tags will only show when the template is placed. noinclude tags will only show on the template page. So, if you want something to change when it's placed, then the includeonly is useful (perhaps a locked timestamp). If you want something on the template page only, then the noinclude is useful (perhaps for template documentation).

Example? Yeah, I thought so. Let's go back to Template:Magic. If the code is (CURRENTTIME is a magic word, which returns the current time when called. Clever that)

```"This magic trick was first performed at <includeonly>{{CURRENTTIME}}</includeonly>
<noinclude>the current time" </noinclude>
```

You could go to Template:Magic and see

"This magic trick was first performed at the current time"

But if you were to call it, you'd get

"This magic trick was first performed at 08:12"

##### Other tricks

There's all sorts of other things you can do with templates, but it gets complicated from here on in. Have a look at Help:Magic words, you'll be amazed at what they can do. I'm going to teach you one more thing before I let you pass this module, and that's the #if: function. It's quite simple really - it works in the following format. {{#if: test string | value if non-empty | value if empty }} where it checks if the parameter "test string" is empty.

So... let's try an example. Template:Magic again. I'm beginning to like it.

```"This magic trick was first performed by {{{1}}} {{#if:{{{time|}}}|at {{{time}}} | long ago}}"
```

Here it checks if the parameter {{{time}}} is null, and if it is it changes the text (the reason I've used {{{time|}}} is so that when the parameter isn't passed in, it defaults to nothing. Otherwise it defaults to {{{time}}}, as in the actual text - {{{time}}}, which just gets confusing).

So you could call it by typing {{Magic|Adam}} and you would get

"This magic trick was first performed by Adam long ago"

or you could call it with a time, {{Magic|Adam|time = 4pm}} and you would get

"This magic trick was first performed by Adam at 4pm"

Ta-da, you've just learnt templates!

### Templates Test

Well, this is a bit of fun, isn't it? One of the more difficult things to test.

Well, for this test, I've created you a nice new page at User:Adam mugliston/Adopt/RexRowan/Template. It's a template! Have a look at it now. Depending on how you call it, different things will happen. So I'd like you to call the template so that you get the correct result. No using subst, just use the parameters of your nice new template.

1) I intend to pass this module! (Template module)

A: I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
F: Perfect. 1 mark

2) My name is RexRowan and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)

A: My name is RexRowan and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
F: Perfect. 1 mark

3) My name is RexRowan and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module)

A: My name is RexRowan and I intend to eat a butterfly (Template module)
F: Perfect. 1 mark

4) My name is RexRowan and I intend to pass this module! I am really good with templates. (Template module)

A: My name is RexRowan and I intend to pass this module I am really good with templates. (Template module)
F: Not the full proper way, but still works, so I'm happy. 2 marks

NB, to get (4) to work properly... you will have to edit the template. Bwhahahah :D

TOTAL 5/5 marks 100% PASS

Lesson 9 - Vandalism

### Vandalism

What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.

To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).

What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.

The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:

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.

1. A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
2. The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
3. The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
4. The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
5. The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
6. The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
7. The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.

Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)

IMPORTANT WARNING: 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: -- 11:06, 27 July 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: Blanked the page. Certainly vandalism.
• Diff 2: [3] Why you think this is vandalism: Irrelevant external link. Have you looked at the link at all? Remember: AGF. The link may have had some connection to the subject of the article. It also could've been advertising, so remove and appropriate warning?
• Diff 3: [4] Why you think this is vandalism: Verbal attack. It's vandalism but not a verbal attack. You can't verbally attack a college...

Next time: Revert the vandalism. Warn user/IP. OK? Twinkle would make that way easier, so if you are interested in fighting vandalism, I'll guide you through Twinkle. Hey, that could be a new lesson! 12:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the link, it was irrelevant. Ok, I am happy to know more! :D -- 12:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

### How to Revert

Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE. Be careful though, I think I'd rather explain it in more detail before you use it, if you are interested in using Twinkle (often abbreviated to TW).

### Vandalism and warnings

You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.

Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.

When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.

The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.

Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.

### Questions

I know there's a lot to read, but there still is a bit of a test, so let me know when you're ready.

### Vandalism

Q1) How would you define vandalism?

A: An edit to an article or other page which is deliberately attempting to harm the encyclopedia.
F: Very good. Delibrately must be used when referring to vandalism.

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. Depend on the motives of the editors, different levels of warning should be given depends on how severe the damages are and how frequent the editors commit it.
F: I agree, it's useful. I also thought it might be useful to have a 'You have been reported' one.

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: No. Depends on how severe the incident is. Repeated vandals, malicious vandals and 'On Wheels' vandals with multiple sock puppets can be blocked straight away.
F: Exactly right.

Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning?

A: The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, it is for repeated vandals who passed level 4 warning, severe belligerent vandal who destroy pages, malicious vandals who replace valid links with shock sites and 'on wheels' vandals with multiple sock puppets.
F: Yes, it is for persistent vandals and for severe vandalism.

Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings?

A: Yes. If they remove the warnings, it automatically means that they have read it.
F: OK. I agree.

Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism?

A: Copyright violation damage Wikipedia no matter intentional or not, so they should all be removed. But vandalism is the damage done deliberately, so if it's unintentional, the editor should get a warning based on the AGF principle.
F: I guess you're right, but for unintentional copy vios, a polite notice should suffice.

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. Editors should have the freedom to choose. If Wikipedia require registration then the vast amount of good work done by IP editors will be lost.
F: I personally don't agree, but ok it's your opinion.

### Working the encyclopedia

Final module, well done for getting this far. I don't know if you realise, but the other 8 modules dealt with the theory of wikipedia, and didn't actually ask you to do anything. Well, this module is designed to teach you about the different areas you can work. It's a big wide encyclopedia out there.

#### Building

The first option is to build new articles. You know an awful lot about how wikipedia works now, and what's notable and what's not, reliable sources and what not. How about you try and write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know. Did you know is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook") and the hook should appear on the front page in the Did you know section! You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.

#### Join a Project

Have a look at your favourite articles, on the talk page, you'll often find that they have an associated WikiProject. The project is always looking for new members and will enjoy your help! They often have to-do lists and you could help out :D

#### Deleting

Why not mozy over to WP:XfD. There's always debates going on about articles that might need deleting from the encyclopedia. Throw in a view! You've been reading so much theory, you'll know as much as most people. There's an article on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which might help you.

#### Patrolling

There's a lot to maintain at wikipedia, and your help would be gratefully received.

• New Page Patrol checks every single new page to see if it meets the guidelines, wikifies it, tags it and marks it as patrolled. Would be very helpful if you'd help out :D Have a read an think which you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your WP:CSD knowledge, or at least nominate them for deletion.
• Recent change patrol, vandalism patrol. it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! I've done quite a bit, but it still only accounts for 20% of my work here.

#### Cleanup

• WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do. I personally hate cleaning up, but I do other things. If you can clean up, go for it. Every little helps. I cannot stress this enough.

#### Help the encyclopedia move forward

There's always discussions going on at requested moves or WP:Requests for comment. Why not see if you can offer a point of view? The most important (supposedly) at any given time are listed at WP:CENT. Hey, you can even wander around the village pump (the encyclopedic version of the water cooler), see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.

### Questions

Think there's stuff 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. ;)

## Lunashy (talk · contribs)

I have put in your first lesson. There's no test, and considering you already have some experience, I'm sure you'll whizz through. Let me know when you're ready for the next part. Why don't you do it on our new talk page?

Lesson 1 - Wiki Markup - Complete

### How to Edit - Wiki Markup

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!

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 Italic text
Internal, or "Wiki" link [[Link Title]] Two square brackets on either side of the link Link Title OR Wikipedia OR User:Adam mugliston/Adopt Pages that do not exist appear in red (Hence the name "red link"), blue if they do exist, and in bold if they link to the page they are on.
Internal link, but this time with a twist [[Link Title|displayed text]] An internal link, with a pipe (usually found under the backspace) separating the title and the text to be displayed The free encyclopedia By inserting a pipe, you can make different text appear. Clicking on the link to the left will bring you to Wikipedia.
External link [http://www.example.org link title] A single square bracket on either side of the URL and title. The URL and link title are separated by a space. link title 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.
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. Media:Example.ogg OR
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 [itex]Insert formula here[/itex] Two math "tags", a technical term (not really) for two angle brackets surrounding the word "math". A closing tag is indicated with a slash. ${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$
${\displaystyle a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}}$
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 :(
Ignore wiki formatting <nowiki>[[Insert]] '''non-formatted''' ''text'' here</nowiki> Two "nowiki" tags. [[Insert]] '''non-formatted''' ''text'' here This code I've been using throughout the table to show you the code. Any wikimarkup inside a nowiki tag is ignored and displayed as written.
Signature with time stamp --~~~~ The operative bit of the code is four tildes (that squiggly bit next to the 1 key). The two dashes don't do anything. -- 21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 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.
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.
Create a redirect #REDIRECT [[Insert title]] The phrase "#REDIRECT" followed by a wikilink to the target page. Preview "Acidic", a redirect page 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.
Picture gallery <gallery>

Image:Example.png|Caption1
Image:Example.png|Caption2
</gallery>

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. If you would like to learn how to make and use tables, please tell me and I will organise a lesson for you.
Add a reference (footnote) blah blah<ref>Reference</ref> Two "ref" tags around the reference text. blah blah[1] 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.
Add a duplicate reference blah blah<ref name="copy">Duplicate</ref> blah blah<ref name="copy"/> The duplicate reference has a slash at the end of the tag. blah blah[2] blah blah[2]

#### The references

(That was a level 4 header, with four equals signs)

1. ^ Reference
2. ^ a b Duplicate

#### Other stuff

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

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:

This code Produces this
:Lorem
:*Ipsum
:*#Dolor
:*#Sit
:*#*Amet
:*#Consectetur
:::Edit
Lorem
• Ipsum
1. Dolor
2. Sit
• Amet
3. Consectetur

Edit

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!

#### Questions

If you have any questions directly related to this, you can post them here.

1. with superscript and subscript how do I get superscript to be on top of the subscript?, I have seen in some peoples signature that they have superscript above subscript.
To be honest, I don't actually know, but I'll find out for you. I haven't ever really come across a need for a lot of superscript and subscript. I'll get back to you here in a few hours.
Still blank, do you know someone who has such a signature?

(talk page stalker)I found that the code was done using <sub style="margin-left:-3.7ex"> You must modify the number in margin left to get the correct distance. <sup>superscript</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3.7ex">subscript</sub> gives superscriptsubscript and <sup>superscript</sup><sub style="margin-left:-8ex">subscript</sub> gives superscriptsubscript. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have played around a bit with the markups over here and I was wondering if there is anything else I should do before I move on to the next thing or if there is a test. Lunashy Friendship letters.write a friendship letter 00:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S thank you ryan for telling me how to do that!
There's no test on this lesson. I had a look at your sandbox and what you've done looks really good, so I'm happy for you to move on. The next lesson is very important, it is the very basis of Wikipedia. I'm not able to put it right now, but it should be on in a few hours. 12:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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 editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.

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

#### Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

#### Questions?

Any questions or would you like to try the test? I would like to try the test now LunashyFriendship letters.write a friendship letter 00:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

#### TEST - 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, although you might be able to find reliable sources for it. Although detailed information is good for an encyclopedia, the colors/colours that they are available in is only trivial information.

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 - Possibly both, but it would first be best to upload the picture of it and get an opinion from others to see if it is as racist as you think because articles in wikipedia, including photos uploaded, must maintain a neutral point of view.

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- Yes you could include this information on Wikipedia, on the baldness page though, not the article about butternut squash (otherwise we could have another 'Chinese restaurant syndrome' kinda thing but with instead of people assuming MSG causes CRS, they would assume butternut squashes cause baldness).

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 - yes, BBC news could be used as a reliable source on The Troubles but it would probably not be a reliable source on ITV as they are 'rival companies' so to speak, the only way that it could be a reliable source would be if it the information that BBC is broadcasting about ITV has been considered to have a neutral point of view.

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

A- No, Social networking sites are not a reliable source.

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 beerbarrels2u.co.uk being used in a beer related article?

A - You would have a bit of a problem seeing as though this website is SELLING beer, unless you were using the about us part of the website, but even so I think it is a it touch and go.

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?

(I though this question was hilarious but it took me longer then expected to figure out how to write the answer)
A - If the editor is really stubborn you might need a source, although if this problem occurs the best thing to do would be bring it up on the talk page about the Sky and suggest they also read up on Colorblindness .

## Trichoses (talk · contribs)

I have put in your first lesson. There's no test, so you can relax. Let me know when you're ready for the next part. Why don't you do it on our new talk page?

### How to Edit - Wiki Markup

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!

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 Italic text
Internal, or "Wiki" link [[Link Title]] Two square brackets on either side of the link Link Title OR Wikipedia OR User:Adam mugliston/Adopt Pages that do not exist appear in red (Hence the name "red link"), blue if they do exist, and in bold if they link to the page they are on.
Internal link, but this time with a twist [[Link Title|displayed text]] An internal link, with a pipe (usually found under the backspace) separating the title and the text to be displayed The free encyclopedia By inserting a pipe, you can make different text appear. Clicking on the link to the left will bring you to Wikipedia.
External link [http://www.example.org link title] A single square bracket on either side of the URL and title. The URL and link title are separated by a space. link title 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.
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. Media:Example.ogg OR
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 [itex]Insert formula here[/itex] Two math "tags", a technical term (not really) for two angle brackets surrounding the word "math". A closing tag is indicated with a slash. ${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$
${\displaystyle a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}}$
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 :(
Ignore wiki formatting <nowiki>[[Insert]] '''non-formatted''' ''text'' here</nowiki> Two "nowiki" tags. [[Insert]] '''non-formatted''' ''text'' here This code I've been using throughout the table to show you the code. Any wikimarkup inside a nowiki tag is ignored and displayed as written.
Signature with time stamp --~~~~ The operative bit of the code is four tildes (that squiggly bit next to the 1 key). The two dashes don't do anything. -- 21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 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.
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.
Create a redirect #REDIRECT [[Insert title]] The phrase "#REDIRECT" followed by a wikilink to the target page. Preview "Acidic", a redirect page 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.
Picture gallery <gallery>

Image:Example.png|Caption1
Image:Example.png|Caption2
</gallery>

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. If you would like to learn how to make and use tables, please tell me and I will organise a lesson for you.
Add a reference (footnote) blah blah<ref>Reference</ref> Two "ref" tags around the reference text. blah blah[1] 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.
Add a duplicate reference blah blah<ref name="copy">Duplicate</ref> blah blah<ref name="copy"/> The duplicate reference has a slash at the end of the tag. blah blah[2] blah blah[2]

#### The references

(That was a level 4 header, with four equals signs)

1. ^ Reference
2. ^ a b Duplicate

#### Other stuff

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

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:

This code Produces this
:Lorem
:*Ipsum
:*#Dolor
:*#Sit
:*#*Amet
:*#Consectetur
:::Edit
Lorem
• Ipsum
1. Dolor
2. Sit
• Amet
3. Consectetur

Edit

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!

#### Questions

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 editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.

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

#### Reliable sources

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

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

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

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

#### Questions?

Any questions or would you like to try the test?

Answering all the questions at once is too much for me. I'd like to work on a few at a time, discuss them, and then do a few more. Is that possible? --Trichoses (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's fine 08:30, 2 June 2012 (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. That kind of detail about a product sounds like an advertisement to me, and not general knowledge. But I'd like to talk about.
F - I'm afraid you're not quite right there. That is not an advertisement at all and you can't add general knowledge in anyway. You could include it if you have a source.

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, that would be original research and I'm not a reliable source on racism in cartoons. I supposed if a published, peer reviewed magazine (or some other reliable)source had used the cartoon as an example of racism, I suppose one could. I don't understand what the difference is between your 2 questions; I'm answering what I think you're asking.
F - Again, you're not quite right. You are right that you couldn't put it in, but the reason is that it is your own opinion that the cartoon is racist. Someone else might not find it racist.

3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?

A- I'm not clear on the question, but I'll make some comments. I would only use any info from an article if it was "a reliable source". I have more thoughts, but I'm exhausted. Can we discuss these 3 questions and then I'll try the others after? --Trichoses (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
C - The question is basically: Can you add the information that the baldness graphs and butternut squash graphs are identical to either the butternut squash or baldness or both articles. Have another go on this one.

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 beerbarrels2u.co.uk being used in a beer 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 -

## Timeweaver (talk · contribs)

I have put in your first lesson. There's no test, and considering you already have some experience, I'm sure you'll whizz through. Let me know when you're ready for the next part. Why don't you do it on our new talk page?

Lesson 1 - Wiki Markup

### How to Edit - Wiki Markup

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!

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 Italic text
Internal, or "Wiki" link [[Link Title]] Two square brackets on either side of the link Link Title OR Wikipedia OR User:Adam mugliston/Adopt Pages that do not exist appear in red (Hence the name "red link"), blue if they do exist, and in bold if they link to the page they are on.
Internal link, but this time with a twist [[Link Title|displayed text]] An internal link, with a pipe (usually found under the backspace) separating the title and the text to be displayed The free encyclopedia By inserting a pipe, you can make different text appear. Clicking on the link to the left will bring you to Wikipedia.
External link [http://www.example.org link title] A single square bracket on either side of the URL and title. The URL and link title are separated by a space. link title 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.
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. Media:Example.ogg OR
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 [itex]Insert formula here[/itex] Two math "tags", a technical term (not really) for two angle brackets surrounding the word "math". A closing tag is indicated with a slash. ${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$
${\displaystyle a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}}$
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 :(
Ignore wiki formatting <nowiki>[[Insert]] '''non-formatted''' ''text'' here</nowiki> Two "nowiki" tags. [[Insert]] '''non-formatted''' ''text'' here This code I've been using throughout the table to show you the code. Any wikimarkup inside a nowiki tag is ignored and displayed as written.
Signature with time stamp --~~~~ The operative bit of the code is four tildes (that squiggly bit next to the 1 key). The two dashes don't do anything. -- 21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 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.
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.
Create a redirect #REDIRECT [[Insert title]] The phrase "#REDIRECT" followed by a wikilink to the target page. Preview "Acidic", a redirect page 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.
Picture gallery <gallery>

Image:Example.png|Caption1
Image:Example.png|Caption2
</gallery>

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. If you would like to learn how to make and use tables, please tell me and I will organise a lesson for you.
Add a reference (footnote) blah blah<ref>Reference</ref> Two "ref" tags around the reference text. blah blah[1] 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.
Add a duplicate reference blah blah<ref name="copy">Duplicate</ref> blah blah<ref name="copy"/> The duplicate reference has a slash at the end of the tag. blah blah[2] blah blah[2]

#### The references

(That was a level 4 header, with four equals signs)

1. ^ Reference
2. ^ a b Duplicate

#### Other stuff

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

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:

This code Produces this
:Lorem
:*Ipsum
:*#Dolor
:*#Sit
:*#*Amet
:*#Consectetur
:::Edit
Lorem
• Ipsum
1. Dolor
2. Sit
• Amet
3. Consectetur

Edit

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!

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 editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.

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

#### Reliable sources

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

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

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

#### TEST - 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 - Technically you could (as anyone can edit) but without a reliable source there is no proof the information is correct! Therefore it's smarter to wait until that information is released through a reliable source, like an online article from a major news source.
F - Perfect

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- No, absolutely not. That sounds to me like a case of an article being copied almost word for word from another source, which should absolutely be considered plagiarism. I would keep looking, I'm sure there's more than one reliable source about squash out there that wouldn't have plagiarized information!
F - Not really the aspect I was looking for, I'll give you more time on that one.

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 beerbarrels2u.co.uk being used in a beer 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 -

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