Welcome, Austinuity! There are three things that I would like to get out of the way. First off, when you leave a talk page message, you leave it at the end of the talk page and not the top; the only exception is at the Teahouse. Second, would you like me to call you Austinuity, or is there something else you'd like to be referred to as? Feel free to just call me Brambleberry; Brambleberry of RiverClan is a computer-full. And third, is there anything specific that you would like to learn right away, or would your answer be pretty much "everything"? Also, feel free not to sign your name at the end of every post. This isn't a talk page.
Thank you! I knew to sign at the end of the page already. I understand how to format most basic, encyclopedic edits already. What I mainly will need help on is Wikipedia rules and policies. I might also need help navigating the utterly overwhelming settings page. I may also need some help navigating special pages and other non-article/non-talk pages. I would prefer to be called Austin, as that is my real-life first name :) But other than that, I'm good for right now! Also, is there a way to add a separate white box like the one that was on this page when I came here? Thanks again!
OH MY GOSH! Why does the feedback dashboard not exist anymore? D: Edit: Never mind. Looks like they decided to disable it and give only one heads-up in the Village Pump's "Technical" section. Guess I gotta take that userbox off my page then... *weeps silently at the death of a userbox* 12:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the death of the Feedback Dashboard. I would sometimes answer questions there earlier. The rules, policies and settings seem like good places to start. I'm not sure what you mean by "a separate white box", but then again I'm notorious for my lack of coding knowledge. You might have to ask at the Teahouse. I basically just copied the format from the old Adopt-a-user homepage with permission and made a few revisions to fit my purpose.
There are five "pillars" of Wikipedia. These are the five principles by which Wikipedia operates. I've simplified them a little for beginners to understand.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia incorporates various elements of reference materials such as encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not for advertising, propaganda, or social networking. It is also not a dictionary, newspaper, or collection of source documents; there are sister projects for this. The goal of Wikipedia is to form a comprehensive online encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia presents all sides of the argument in a fair and balanced way whenever possible. We present no such opinion as being "the truth" or "the right position". Every allegation must be backed up by references, especially when concerning a controversial topic or a living person.
Wikipedia is free content.
Wikipedia is free for others to edit, use, modify, and distribute. No editor owns an article, and so everything you write is free to be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will. However, we still respect copyright laws and do not plagiarize.
Editors should be respectful.
Wikipedia has millions of editors who are bound to disagree on some topics. When you do happen to disagree, you should discuss your disagreement on the article's talk page. During this you should remain level-headed and not accuse. Just because the other editor may begin attacking you does not mean that you need to engage in similar behavior.
Wikipedia has no firm rules.
Much like the Constitution, as Wikipedia changes, the rules do as well. Nothing is carved in stone. Sometimes improving Wikipedia means doing an exception to the rule. Be bold in your edits (but not reckless) and don't worry about making a mistake, as you can always fix it.
Any questions?
Nope! No questions! Though one request. Would you please make this page formatted like a regular talk page? I am oft on a smartphone, and this layout is not very friendly to the mobile site.
Is it especially important to you that I do? Because I'm afraid that without the formatting I lose the handy navbar at the top of the page, which I use quite freqently to switch between adoptees.
No, not really, I guess.
Sorry for any inconveniences it may have caused you. Now on to lesson 2, as you seem to be getting this!
Now, you may know a little about this already, and if you do then it will be a breeze for you. Reliable sources are a good thing to know about. At the end of this one there will be a test. This test will probably be more or less copied from User:Go Phightins!'s test, as, without any specific questions, I have to base some of my curriculum off of an average one. There will only be tests after some lessons. If any specific questions do come up, I can make a lesson of what you want that probably won't have a test. Don't worry about being graded; if you get it wrong I'll just nudge you in the right direction. My goal is not to get it finished fast, but completely correct.
Wikipedia uses the word "source" to mean three different, interchangeable things: a piece of work, the writer of the work, and the creator of the work. Therefore, a reliable source should be published materials from a reliable publisher (you can pretty much guarantee that a press coming from a university is reliable), authors who are known for the subject that they are covering, like L. David Mech talking about wolves, or a fiction author being interviewed about their own work, or both, like a book about wolves by L. David Mech published by the University of Chicago Press. And while a source may be considered reliable on one topic, it may not be on other topics. Like that L. David Mech book (which is a real book called Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation), which only talks about real wolves. While it's great when talking about wolf behaviors and conservation, it may not be the best authority for talking about Little Red Riding Hood.
Most self-published sources are considered unreliable because no publisher had a say in what goes in and what comes out. However, this doesn't apply to self-published sources talking about themselves. Like let's say that Mercedes Lackey wrote a post on her website about her inspiration for the Elemental Masters series. Because it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, you can add that information in a section called "Inspiration and origins".
Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable, like The New York Times. However, some of these news sources get information from Wikipedia, so it can get trapped in cyclic sourcing. Wikipedia cites an article that cites Wikipedia!
In addition, anything that is commonly accepted by the public can be put in without a source, just like in a reference paper. Saying that snow melts when it gets warm outside is not going to need a source.
Any questions?
Is a source still considered reliable if it is self-published, but still cites all reliable sources?
Yes. Much like with a research paper, if a source of any kind has its own citations, then it's reliable. Something I forgot to mention but that you probably figured out is that social-networking sites are generally unreliable unless they have some kind of important information. A lot of the time when a show is cancelled, actors will tweet that it's cancelled. Do you feel as if you're ready for the test?
Alright! I need some help getting a userbox to align correctly, but that's something I think we should talk about on my User Talk page. I'm ready!
You can have as much time as you need to complete this test. Don't stress out; the important thing to remember is that if you get anything wrong I'll be there to help you.
1.) Q- A friend just told you that Mitt Romney has just been appointed the chancellor of Harvard University. Can you add this to Romney and/or Harvard's page? Why or why not?
A- NO. My friend has not given me sources from which I can confirm this, and therefore my friend is not reliable.
Wonderful answer! If I had heard this, I probably would have checked Harvard's website to see if he was even mentioned before thinking about adding it.
2.) Q-The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon as part of an article that you see to be blatantly racist. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
Good answer again. If other people wrote in to The Daily Telegraph and said it was racist, and this was not an isolated incident, it may merit inclusion with sufficient sources.
3.) Q- You find an article claiming that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information on the socialist, capitalist, cancer, or diabetes page?
A- No. I don't seem to know where the article is from, nor if it is self-published or not.
Correct. In addition, if the article itself cites no sources, it may just be making everything up, being an opinion, or just being an idea based on capitalist friends with diabetes and socialist friends with cancer.
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC or Sarah Palin? Why or why not?
A- For MSNBC, it would depend. Although there are libel laws, these are two rival companies, and it may posiibly be based on hearsay. If they provide sufficient references, then yes. For Sarah Palin, it may be considered valid, as long as Fox News gives references and states how they have received this information.
Ah, yes, this one is a little tricky, but you handled it well. FOX News and MSNBC are known for their major rivalry, so anything that one says about the other would probably be an attack on credibility. However, if they cite a well-reputed newspaper about it, then it would be okay. With Sarah Palin, it's the same thing; they've been known to be biased towards her, so if it was a solid fact with references, it could be included. If it said that she was wonderful, it would not.
5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page as a reliable source? Why or why not?
A- It depends. If it were for information on the company, then yes, because it is a primary source. For all else, no.
Correct! A new flavor would be an example on something to cite there. A new coupon would not. In addition, always look for a press release on the actual page to back something up.
6.) Q- An unnamed "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the newspaper's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source? Why or why not?
A- Sadly, since this "forum official" did not mention a name, it is not reliable. If they had mentioned a name, it would have depended. If the person were to confirm the interview on a social network and state their name, it might be debatable. If there was videographic evidence, and a name was mentioned, and it was made official, then it would have been reliable.
Wonderful, thorough answer! An unnamed "forum official" could be Bob the hot dog vendor across the street or it could be Peter Laufer, but since you don't know you can't cite it in an article.
7.) Q- Would you consider the "about us" section on Burger King's website a reliable source for information on the history of Burger King? Why or why not? (Hint: The "about us" page actually gives a pretty detailed history of BK).
A- Yes. Since it is a primary source directly from the company's website, it is valid.
Correct! But be sure to look for words that may inflate Burger King's status and remove those to make it neutral. In addition, while the "about us" page might be good for quick snippets of history, it probably wouldn't be good for controversy.
8.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue except for one editor, who says that it's bronze. Do you need a source? Why or why not?
A- No. Since it is common knowledge that the sky is blue, it does not have to be cited.
Correct! There is actually an essay about this called Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. This is an essay, however, not a policy, which means that it's just an opinion. The editor may demand a reference saying that the sky is blue instead of bronze, but it is only disruptive and the best course of action would to let the editor know what they are doing is wrong on their talk page. This is Wikipedia etiquette, and will be covered in the next section.
You seem to be getting the hang of this, and it seems as if User:Theopolisme has helped you out with your userbox situation. As mentioned before, the next section is on Wikipedia etiquette. Do you feel ready to move on to that, or would you like a personalized lesson for a specific problem you have?
"Wikiquette" is, as I'm sure you've guessed by now, a portmanteau of "Wikipedia" and "etiquette". There are three main points of Wikiquette: assuming good faith, threading, and avoiding common mistakes.
Assuming good faith
There are two fundamental points of Wikipedia. One is that we are here to build an encyclopedia. The other is this. This will come up again and again because it is so important. Always assume that every member of the community you come across is trying to do the right thing. The exception to this would be somebody who already has four plus vandalism warnings and who is making more malicious edits; they probably aren't acting in good faith. Apart from that, don't jump straight in to assume somebody is malicious. Whenever I come across someone's first edit that isn't particularly helpful, I have a system. I'll use a recent example. Somebody's first edit was that they changed the numbers in Bernese mountain dog to say that the dog was between five and sixty feet tall at the withers. I reverted the edit, explaining why, and then left a note on their talk page describing what their edit meant and that mistakes were okay, but that if they meant to do it, then it could be considered vandalism, which they could get blocked for. Then I invited them to the Adopt-a-user program. Whenever I'm confronting a new editor, I like to begin with "Welcome to Wikipedia, (user name)!" and end with "Happy editing!"
Threading
You've pretty much got the hang of this already. When you're responding to something I write, you use one colon. When I then respond to you, you use two colons. When you then respond to me, you use three colons. The tricky thing is when you want to respond to the original post, but there's already a long line of threading. Then you just go back to using one colon. Think of it this way: whatever you want to respond to, preface it with one more colon than what it had already.
Avoiding common mistakes
It's pretty easy to come across a faux pas in the Wikipedia editing world. Try not to create autobiographical articles or articles about someone close to you, company articles, dictionary-type articles (we have Wiktionary for that), articles that are too short to have any encyclopedic value, and redundant articles. For the last one, it's easy to figure out if you're creating something redundant; just type in the search term into the search box and see if what comes up covers your topic. Whenever you delete content, be sure you give an explanation as to why. Even if you revert vandalism, say that it's vandalism. I saw once that somebody removed vandalism without saying that they were, and ClueBot NG reverted THEIR edit, thinking it was vandalism. Also, try not to delete valuable content just because it's poorly written and biased; instead, just rewrite it. (If it's about a living person and has no references, however, then it's time to delete.) Try to properly structure a lead section (more on that later), consistently style text (once again, more on that later), avoid self-referencing (referencing the Wikipedia project in article space), avoid external links in places other than the external link section, and avoid adding a signature any place but a talk page, but always remember to use your signature on talk pages. Edit instead of criticize, don't forget to be bold, don't over-capitalize articles, and don't add too many internal links. Try to remain level-headed in arguments (if you feel you're getting too heated, walk away and bring in a third party), always keep talk pages on topic, and don't get annoyed when you see bad articles or drastic edits (or even deletion) of your work.
Signatures
I thought I should touch on this because I got busted for a mistake I didn't know was a mistake. There are also Wikiquette rules for signatures. You can customize a signature any way you want (for example, mine is in Segoe Script and I use the colors dodgerblue and silver). There are a few no-nos, though. First, do not copy another editor's signature. Even making it look somewhat like another editor's signature is wrong. Linking to someone else's user page on your signature is a big mistake. Second, try not to make your signature too big. That can effect the way surrounding text displays. Be sparing with your superscript and subscript, too. It can sometimes cause a similar problem. Keep your signature a decently big size, too; if it's too small, we won't know who you are. When you use different colors, make sure that color-blind people will still be able to read it okay. Do not include horizontal rules in your signature (I don't know why, it isn't explained). Third (and this is the one I got busted for), do not include images in your signature! It's wrong for a number of reasons, including server slowdown, distraction, comment displacement, and cluttering up the "File links" section every time you comment. You can use webdings or wingdings to get an image effect, though. For example, I use the webdings cat icon in my signature because it's technically a font, not an image. Fourth, keep your signatures short enough that they don't take up a whole line of text when you comment. Fifth, make sure that your signature always links to at least your user page, talk page, or contributions page. Sixth, don't include any external links at all or internal links that have no purpose to building the encyclopedia. Finally, assume good faith when approaching someone who has these problem signatures and be polite.
Whew, that was a lot of reading (and writing on my part)! Do you have any questions or are you ready for the test?
Sorry I have been gone for so long, I've been very ill. I do believe that I am ready for the test! :)
1.) Q- Use your own words to explain what good faith means.
A- Good faith means assume that everyone is always trying to do the right thing, no matter how big a mistake may be.
Correct!
2.) Q- You come across a mythical creature article and see that it has been labelled as a cryptid, so you change the "grouping" from "legendary creature" to "cryptid". An editor removes the whole infobox, including the picture, telling you not to pollute Wikipedia with pseudo-science jargon. What is your course of action? (This is based on a true story.)
A- I restore the edit. He has not given a reason based on Wikipedia policies as to why this is not factual. I then see if he has more than 4 vandalism warnings. If he does, I then report it to someone who has the power to block users.
While restoring the edit would be a good idea, you should probably mention to him your reason for keeping the cryptid label so that he doesn't think that you're just being a rude vandal.
3.) Q- Take a look at the following conversation:
What's the best cat breed in the world? -Abraham
Something longhaired, probably. -Robert
Yeah, specifically Nordic. -Winston
You mean like a Norwegian Forest Cat? -Edgar (position A)
Dogs are better anyway. -Dwight
The Norwegian Forest Cat, obviously. But I do have a soft spot for jet-black nonpedigrees. -Edgar (position B)
Who is Edgar responding to in position A? What about position B? (Note: Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Winston Churchill, and Edgar Allan Poe were all avid cat lovers, and Dwight D. Eisenhower was a cat hater.)
A- In position A, Edgar is responding to Winston Churchill. In position B, he is responding to Abraham Lincoln.
Correct. Threading is, indeed, pretty easy to understand.
4.) Q- Your best friend was third in the graduating class of 2008 at USC, and when you perform a Google Search for him that's the only thing that comes up, apart from his blog about pictures of his guinea pig. Name everything that would be wrong with writing that article.
A- Your friend should not be written in as an article because he is not well-known enough. Also, there would not be enough information to create even a stub.
Correct! An article about your friend would not only create a conflict of interest because you know him, but he would also fall under A7 of speedy deletion as a person not important enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. Not that your friend isn't important, but rather there's no reason why someone would want to search for him on Wikipedia.
5.) Q- Someone in clear association with George R. R. Martin wrote a paragraph explaining why he was the best author ever, using clear facts as sources. Should you delete it? Why or why not? If not, what should you do?
A- This should be deleted. It is not a fact, it is an opinion. Even though it is referenced, that does not mean it is not an opinion.
This one could be a little shaky, as it is referenced. A better course of action would probably be to look at the references and see if there is any information you can use. If so, find a better place for it. If not, just delete the whole thing.
6.) Q- Name everything that's wrong with the following signature:
A- First, it includes a picture. Second, it is way too big. Third, it includes a link to a page not constructive to building Wikipedia.
You got it right with the picture and the size (it was also supposed to blink, but I guess you don't see that either). As for the link, Bob was probably just trying to say that he was part of the Esperanza project, in which case it would be allowed. There was also a line break that added to the size.
Short quiz, but it's all important.
Sorry about my absence, I've been really, really busy.
Okay, so you've got an idea of what good faith means, you get threading and basic notability, and you know enough about what makes a signature wrong. The one thing you had a little trouble with is dealing with problem editors while assuming good faith. The idea is to get involved with them a little, nonviolently of course. Here's another question to see if you can get the hang of it.
Sorry, I'm going to be gone for a few weeks.
2.1) Q- You come across an article for a cat breed, let's say the Himalayan. The picture is separate from, and lower-quality than, the one at List of cat breeds. Naturally, you replace it with the one at List of cat breeds. An editor comes along and reverts the edit, with the edit summary being "Your photo is NOT a Himalayan. Photo of Himalayan is used with permission of founder of the breed, Mrs. Goforth." A quick scan of the editor's talk page reveals that they are really gung-ho about what constitutes a Himalayan. What is your course of action? (This is based on another true story).
A-I explain patiently to the editor that the picture I had submitted was the one accepted on the List of cat breeds. I ask him to explain exactly why this picture isn't a Himalayan, and that he is encouraged to submit a high quality picture of a "real" Himalayan. I explain to him that for now, his change is reverted. If he refused to explain what a real Himalayan constitutes and replaces the image 2 more times, that is when I take action.
Sorry I've been gone so long. A major situation had arisen.
That's okay. And you passed the test now! The next lesson is on the Manual of Style. I'll get that up ASAP.
The Manual of Style is a style guide for all Wikipedia articles. It is basically a list of guidelines—not necessarily rules—to abide by when you are on Wikipedia. Here are the main points of it:
Article titles, headings, and sections
Article titles are like sentences, not story titles. This means that only the first word of the title and proper nouns are capitalized, not all important words. The exceptions are things like iPod and eBay, where there are weird capitalizations.
Do not use articles (a, an, and the) in the beginning of a title unless it is part of the title of the work. This means "Economic impact of dingoes", not "The economic impact of dingoes", but A Clockwork Orange stays the same.
When all of the content is done, the bottom sections and information should go in the following order, with the information in parentheses being the proper header. If there is no information in parentheses, this doesn't have a heading but just goes after the last one mentioned:
written or musical works by the subject (Works or Discography)
internal links related to it (See also)
notes and references (References)
books that are so frequently used that a reference is, say, "Laufer 11-42" (Bibliography)
relevant publications that have not been used as sources (Further reading)
relevant websites, usually the official website of something (External links)
navigational boxes
categories
interlanguage links, if needed
Headings should not be redundant to the main subject or a higher heading (for example, if one heading was "Ecological impact", you would not have a subheading called "Ecological impact")
Headings should not have links or citations in the heading
Headings should not contain images or flag icons
Headings should not contain questions, unless the name of a work is a question
Spelling and grammar in different forms of English
There are many different kinds of English. Sometimes, using an invisible template such as {{Use American English}}, {{Use British English}}, or {{Use Irish English}}, you can tell what you should use. Otherwise, guess based on what the rest seems to be written in and keep it standard.
Capital letters
Do not use capital letters for emphasis. If absolutely necessary, use italics (as I did in that sentence).
Do not capitalize articles when they are not part of a work (e.g., not The United Kingdom, but The Lord of the Rings)
When dealing with titles of works or bands, use the proper way it is capitalized (e.g. Animal Farm and fun.)
Do not capitalize words like "president" or "king" unless they apply to an honorific title (e.g. "a Scottish king" and "King David II of Scotland")
Religions (Roman Catholicism), scriptures (Gospel of John), deities (God), and specific religious events (the Great Flood) are capitalized, as are specific mythical creatures like the Minotaur and Pegasus. Pronouns for figures of veneration are not capitalized (e.g., in Catholicism, when talking about God, He is always capitalized; not so on Wikipedia).
Months, days of the week, and holidays are capitalized; seasons are not.
When dealing with scientific names, only the first word is capitalized. When dealing with the Latinate of higher taxa, words are capitalized, but not the English equivalent. (e.g. Felidae, but felid)
Common names are not capitalized (puma, gray wolf) unless they include a proper noun (Przewalski's horse, Madgascar free-tailed bat)
"Sun", "earth", and "moon" are not capitalized unless personified or mentioning a specific astronomical body (e.g. The Moon orbits the Earth).
Do not capitalize directions. Only capitalize names of regions when they have attained proper-name status (the West Coast, but southern Poland).
When it comes to institutions and places, follow their own usage (such as The Ohio State University insists on having the "the" capitalized.)
Any questions? I have included only the very basics; there is much more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
I think I've got it!
Cool! I tried to put it in bulletpoints so there's not as much to digest in block text. It should also help with the test, which I'll get up ASAP.
1.) Q- Capitalize the following accordingly: a farewell to arms
ipad
ecological impact of feral cats
A-A Farewell to Arms, iPad, Ecological impact of feral cats
Y
2.) Q- Put the following in the correct order:
(1) Category:Books by Peter Laufer
(2) See also: Karen Dawn
(3) Further reading: Guenter, Bernd (2004). The Bernese Mountain Dog: A Dog of Destiny. Sun City: Doral Publishing. ISBN0-9745407-3-0.
(4) Bibliography: Dunayer, Joan (2001). Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Ryce Publishing. ISBN978-0-97064-755-9.
(5) Works: No Animals Were Harmed: The Controversial Line Between Entertainment and Abuse.
(6) [[nl:Marc Bekoff]]
(7) Dunayer 11-47 '(What is this?)'
(8) Official website
(9) {{Peter Laufer}}
A-I have to say I'm a little lost on this one.
No worries. I understand that it was a little confusing. It was meant to be the proper order of everything after the prose.
3.) Q- Name everything that's wrong with this if it were an article title:
What is the beginning of United Kingdom English progressive rock?
A-It includes links, images, and it is a question.
Y
4.) Q- What English should you use if this is a sample sentence?
The tusks, at 9 m (30 ft), were adapted to minimise interference with daily life.
A-British
Y
5.) Q- Capitalize the following accordingly. If correct, write "correct":
the republic of ireland N the Republic of Ireland Tailchaser's SongY
King Cormac Mac Airt of Ireland Y
a Czech president Y
hasidic Judaism N Hasidic Judaism
the book of revelation N The Book of Revelation
winter Y otomops madagascariensisNOtomops madagascariensis
ursidae N Ursidae
hooded crow Y
jupiter has at least 67 moons N Jupiter has...
east coast N East Coast
western Kazakhstan Y
north Y
University of Pennsylvania Y
A- I fixed them within the question.
Overall Y.
Rather short in terms of numbers, but there's more than one part to 4/5 of the questions.
I'm done.
A little shaky in capitalization of the last one, but that's okay with so many. An overall pass.
Ah, vandalism. It really is the bane of most editors' existence on Wikipedia. Fortunately, if you keep a good eye, you should be able to fix it.
Looking for vandals
I'm not a vandal hunter, but if you have a few pages watchlisted, you'll likely run into some vandalism. If you're looking at your watchlist, see if an editor whose talk page is still redlinked made an edit without an edit summary. This could be vandalism, as most new editors think that Wikipedia is just a place to post junk. However, whenever you see an editor who you don't now, I would check out the edit to make sure it isn't vandalism, as some editors have talk pages that are nothing but warnings. The missing edit summary is always a sign that something may not be right, which is why I've gotten into the good habit of putting in my edit summaries.
Reverting vandalism
To revert vandalism, you would go to "View history" on a page. Now see the button with "Compare selected revisions." Press that and find the vandalism reversion. Since you have Twinkle, you should see three options: "Rollback (AGF)", "Rollback", and "Rollback (VANDAL)". The first one you shouldn't use unless it's obviously good faith, and we're not talking about that. The third one you should only use if it's a repeat offender who has a significant amount of vandalism under their belt. Usually for new editors you will use the second one.
Warning vandals
There are different ways to warn vandals. This is Brambleberry's warning guide. Be sure to use Twinkle for everything. The first step will be under "Wel", while the rest will be under "Warn":
If this is a new editor's first edit, you welcome them and use either {{welcomevandal}} if they have a username or {{welcome-anon-vandal}} if they are an IP editor. You always link the article that you found the vandalism on.
If, after their welcoming, they are still vandalizing, you use a "General notice (1)". {{uw-vandalism1}} is the general, though if you can get more specific, try.
If they are still vandalizing, you use a "Caution (2)".
If they continue to vandalize, you use a "Warning (3)".
If they still continue their vandalism, you use a "Final warning (4)".
If, even after all your warning, they continue vandalism, you've warned them long enough. You report them to administrators using "APV" on Twinkle. Fill in as much as possible and send the notice on your merry way. The admins will do what they have to afterwards.
If someone has a level 3 warning on one charge (such as vandalism), but doesn't have one on another (like using a talk page as a forum), start with a level 1 warning on the new charge. I've found that some vandals have multiple charges.
Different vandals
There are multiple kinds of vandals.
Scared vandals. There are those kinds of vandals that make one kind of unhelpful edit (like replacing a heading with "muahaha" or some type of gibberish) thinking that everyone on Wikipedia does that. They then get a warning and are scared straight immediately. They either choose not to edit ever again or become upstanding editors.
Repeat vandals. The repeat vandals are bored and looking for a little fun. Once again, most of their vandalism is gibberish replacing good text. You can give them as many warnings as you want, but they won't bother. Once you get past the level 4 warning for them, you report them to WP:AIV and the admins deal with them.
Belligerent vandals. These vandals are similar to the repeat vandals, except the belligerent vandals will often leave a nasty note on your talk page or vandalize your user page when you give them a warning. They then build up two warnings: vandalism and personal attacks.
Malicious vandals. These are sneaky vandals that add seemingly-true information, add shock sites, or add hidden and offensive comments. They may also do multiple quick vandalism, such as moving as many pages as possible, or blanking many pages, or replacing all the content with the same sentence. In this case, you give them {{uw-vandalism4im}}. If they continue vandalizing (which they probably will), report them to WP:AIV.
AIV
WP:AIV, or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, is what you do when people won't stop vandalism. You can report them by Twinkle, as Twinkle has the option "ARV", which allows you to fill out a form that sends the user to WP:AIV. Once it gets sent there, there is no more left for you to do; let the admins handle it. However, if I were you, I would keep track of the editor and what the admins decide on for punishment.
2.) Q- What are some of the hints that an edit may be vandalism while watching recent changes?
A-
3.) Q- What warning template is appropriate for a user who has blanked a page and has already been given {{welcomevandal}}?
A- Hello, I'm Brambleberry of RiverClan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
4.) Q- You warned someone for, oh, let's say messing with taxonomy templates. He came to your talk page and unleashed a range of expletives on you and your parents. He was on his third taxonomy warning and his second for adding spam links, but has had none for personal attacks. What template would you use?
