PBASH607

Hi PBASH607, welcome to your adoption page. I'll post lessons below and you ask any questions you like about it, and then we move on to the informal test and the next lessons after it. The first one is below. You can give messages like you would normally do on a talk page here, but don't forget to sign. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2013 (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 Marking scheme - There are three kind of marks to every question-

Y - Good answer; interprets policy correctly and shows a sound understanding of the issues involved.
Y - Incomplete/insufficient answer; whilst partly correct, there are better responses to this question.
N - Poor answer; shows an inadequate understanding of the policies and guidelines concerned.

A combination of two of these marks would indicate somewhere in between the two standards. Based on all the responses to all the questions, we'll see on whether or not to move to the next lesson.

The Five Pillars

The lesson is now satisfactory complete after our recent discussion on the same. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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?

Test for five pillars

Test

This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There's not time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

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

A - Yes you may, as long as it is supported by reliable sources, if not you may remove the content if not referenced as the previous claim was. --PrabashWhat? 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Correct. Also a {{cn}} tag may be added instead of removing. That option is usually used for those claims which may be supported by sources. Usually such tags are there to allow some time for anyone to add the sources. The information can be removed after a reasonable amount of time the tag has been there. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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 - Yes of course Wikipedia is uncensored and the newspaper racism would be a great example for the racism article for sure, primarily due to the fact that it is a mainstream newspaper publisher. It is not recommended on the newspaper article due to the fact that it may be seen as a rumor, and misleads the topic. Prabash.Akmeemana 00:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two parts to the question. Please answer both of them. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
N Wikipedia is Uncensored only means that we wouldnt censor the articles unnecessarily. But that does not mean that we add anything to the article without regard to the other policies. Before adding the information to either article, you should have checked for other sources pointing out the same. Or it would have been Original Research. Then comes the concern of whether adding the detail does anything to NPOV concerns. Unless it is a widely publicized news for racism, it is not suggested to add the information to the racism article, or it could give Undue Weight. But it might be possibly added to the article about the newspaper, provided the event is talked about in reliable sources. Staying correct to NPOV is also important in both the cases. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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 - Trivial content should not belong on Wikipedia unless it is really important. In the case of the baldness issue it is not a good trivial,, but the butternut squashes is interesting and has some interesting and possibly useful content, I personally would keep the butternut squash trivial. --PrabashWhat? 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

YN The first sentence of your answer is correct. But the second part is not. As a fundamental principle, Common Sense is above any policy. An the entire premise of the two things being related is ridiculous. Before being considered for adding, a lot more inspection on whether it is a scientific study with reliable sources. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?

A - Since it is mainstream news this would be a really good source for The Troubles as it could be documenting an issue there etc, it is reliable. But for the ITV article it wouldnt be a recommended source but it still applies to as reliable. --PrabashWhat? 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Y I would personally consider ITV to be not very reliable, but still an acceptable source. But it certainly wouldn't be recommended, especially if other better sources were available. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A - Social media sites are not considered reliable sources, they may change over time and they expose the person to everyone. It is best to remove the facebook link --PrabashWhat? 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Correct. Facebook is not considered a reliable source, as it is primary, and likely to be biased. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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 - Forums are not reliable sources, the same applies to blogs and social media. --PrabashWhat? 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Y. Correct. Unless the "official" is a reliable source in himself, their stance would not be reliable at all. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A - It seems to be related to the topic and has significant information about it, so I guess its fine --PrabashWhat? 02:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

N The website does not appear to be reliable at all. Practically almost any use of such a website as a source will be likely for advertising purposes, as is often done. Moreover, any information on this site will be likely to be referenced using better, reliable sources. There may exist a very tiny chance though, that the website be actually a possible source. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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 - That does not seem like a reliable source, I would say to add a reliable third party source to the article because it may be a notability issue. --PrabashWhat? 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Yes. Primary sources are avoided whenever possible, and used almost exclusively for non-contentious factual points. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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 -Well of course, such content like that requires a damn good reliable source, and a lot. the claim should also be discussed on the talk page. --PrabashWhat? 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue are two differing essays that may be of interest here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquette

A definite pass TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquette

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

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

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

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

How's the soup? --John

It's great!! --Jane

I made it myself! --John

Let's move the discussion to Talk:Soup. --Jane

I tend to disagree. --George

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

Questions

Any questions?

Test for Wikiquette

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- Rods Mate

Y TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

2) Position B?

A- Rod

Y TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A- No, because he/she has not being misusing the guidelines for using multiple accounts, his actions were not disruptive and he does not mean harm, perhaps he has previous experience using and working with templates in general, but by no means should he be accused of being a sock. Prabash.Akmeemana 02:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Exactly. Also, AGF. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

We'll come back to this lesson later. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

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

Glossary

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

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

Image Copyright on Wikipedia

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
Non-free images

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

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

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

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

There must be no free equivalent
We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
Must have been published elsewhere first
Meets our general standards for content
Meets our specific standards for that area
Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
Can only be used in article space
The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag

It's a lot, isn't it! Well, let's have a look at the non free stuff. I'm going to suggest two different images. One, a tabloid picture of celebrity actress Nicole Kidman, and the other, the cover of the album Jollification by the Lightning Seeds. The tabloid picture of Nicole Kidman will instantly fail #1, because there can be a free equivalent - anyone can take a picture of Nicole. The album cover on the other hand is unique - there's no free equivalent. It's discussed in the article too, so showing it will be useful in context (#8). The copy we show should be shrunk, so that it can't be used to create pirate copies (#2). I couldn't put it on my userpage though (or even here) (#9)

Get it? Well here are a few more examples.

I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.

Commons

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

Copyright and text

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

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

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

Questions

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

Test for Copyright

Test

Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?

A- Wikipedia in my opinion is free, it is open source for anyone to edit, a knowledge base which is open to the entire world to see and edit. Prabash.Akmeemana 16:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Y. Correct. Though it might have been interesting if you'd noted the various non free files we have here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?

A- You can upload a picture to commons as long as it is entirely your own or free works, you may not upload a picture to if it someone else's work, logo's and most published pictures on the internet, unless the publisher gave you permission to upload the picture or it is your photograph of old artifacts like really old, the mona lisa or even a Picasso!. Prabash.Akmeemana 21:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Y Perfectly correct answer but I'd personally asked you for a longer answer with more details. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A- No you may not, primarily due to that fact that we dont share music or .wav files on Wikipedia. Prabash.Akmeemana 20:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

N See Wikipedia:Featured_sounds. Now that you know that music is allowed, your answer will be? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes you may, Wikipedia is open to music, it is therefore allowed to upload sounds to commons, but entire songs by famous artists at its whole is not. Prabash.Akmeemana 19:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Y The only thing that matters to uploading a file is its copyright. If the file is non copyrighted, you cannot add anymore than a sample of a few seconds. For free music, as is this case, there is no such restriction. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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- He may not do that because it is a clear copyright violation, as he just took the works of others, and there was no permission given Prabash.Akmeemana 20:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Y What he did is called it a derivative work and may be permissible under some of the licenses, based on the license itself. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A- No, uploading a press image of the pope is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, primarily because of the fact that commons does not accept non-free images that are not your own work, and clearly the press image of the Pope is not your work as it is the work of the press. Prabash.Akmeemana 16:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The question was about using it as a fair use on Wikipedia. Care to retry? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be only uploaded in the case that the newspaper company has waived all rights to the picture of the Pope, But this image is not to be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons as it is not free. Prabash.Akmeemana 19:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If the newspaper has waived all rights, it will be considered free. Hence we would be able to add it to Commons. But that wasnt the question here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A- Yes you may upload pictures of death row inmates on Wikipedia, it does not violate the fair use rationale, and such images are seen all across wikipedia, particularly "mugshots". Prabash.Akmeemana 21:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

N As I explained in my chat, Mugshots arent press photos and we arent talking about them. "Such images are seen across wikipedia" is not a valid rationale (See the problem with it at Other stuff exists). If it falls under fair use, you need to explain how. Suggest retry. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No you may not upload the image but if it is listed under fair use for say the prisoner, fore example one from the boston bombings is part of a unique historical significance and is under fair use. Prabash.Akmeemana 20:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair use could become applicable here even without the special case you mentioned because of the simple fact that there can be no further (free) pictures of a dead person. So if a press image is the only image we have, fair use would apply. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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- This is an obvious copyvio, and at the same time it could be promotional primarily because it is copied directly from the company website. If the article is old and has been edited frequently by different users, it is best to bring it to AFd, if it is new tag it with CSD under copyright violation. Prabash.Akmeemana 20:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Y In both cases, a CSD is the way to go, especially it matches the page exactly, because of excessive copyvio. However, if it has a non-copyvio previous version, then its best to revert to that version, and contact an admin to revision-delete (rev-del) the intermediate portion. Copyright violations are quite serious here, and we cannot allow egregious copyvio even in page histories. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

A- Really depends on the type of move, if this is a copy paste content move from one article to another it is not right. Page moves in general are fine. Prabash.Akmeemana 20:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This is talking about copying content from article A to link B, and then redirecting A to article B. Retry? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Big issues; When a such move is done, the page history of both aritcles will be split among-st two different pages. Prabash.Akmeemana 19:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. A direct move preserves the page history TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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:Astro boy.jpg

Y TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

This lesson is a pass with flying colours TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

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

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 editors 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). The editors at each specialise in sorting debates.

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 it's 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.

Any questions?

Questions about any of the above?

Test for Dispute Resolution

Test

This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless !

1.) Q- In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.).

A-

Editor assistance:Is another editor from the noticeboard the does not intervene with the issue firsthand but comments with you on the situation. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Y
Third opinion:A third opinion is when another editor is chosen to give an opinion on the subject to aid in reaching a consensus. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Y
Mediation:Is a group of editors that are experienced with debates and will handle the situation. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Y
Request for comment: A request for comment is used to get more users involved in the discussion by attracting users to the discussion via request, the more users aiding in reaching consensus the better, a bot notifies users about the discussion comment on talk pages. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Y
Arbitration:I personally highly recommend against this, but if its the last and only solution. Arbitration should only be used in the most extreme of scenarios Y

Full marks for all the above! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

2.) Q- Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question:

Part A) Is this edit warring?

A-Yes, this is edit warring, in fact the start of one. editor A adds, editor be says no and reverts, editor A is unhappy adds again, editor reverts again! Prabash.Akmeemana 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?

A- As of now it is best to get another editor to solve the dispute on talk page, here they can communicate and negotiate with each other to reach a consensus. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing here mentioned that the two editors has infact tried directly discussing this issue on the talk page. As is often seen, those two editors may have been reverting without even going to the talk page. In that case, trying to discuss the issue in the first place is the first step before contacting someone else to step in. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, let's just say you think the article should be deleted, the creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation?

A-In my opinion the best thing to do is to leave it, f possible leave a kind reply regarding to the topic, it is best not to feed the trolls Prabash.Akmeemana 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Y Perfect. A comment like that will be a direct personal attack, and its best to leave that aside. In the very rare cases it can not/should not be, the better decision will be to ask someone uninvolvedd and experienced to check if it is a PA, and let them take any action, if its necessary in the first place. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?

A-Me personally, though I may be wrong on this one, reverse the order on everything, put the worst on the top (Name Calling) and the best one at the bottom as I personally like to read pyramid charts from the bottom up, therefore it confused me. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Y The question was more to the point of "Would you have made any changes to the order in which these responses were listed?" But yours is an interesting opinion too, and might be more sensible, if you think of it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

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

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

General criteria 1 (G1) or G2 - Patent Nonsense and/or Test pages. Commonly created by new accounts, these have no meaningful purpose at all. Mark these pages with the templates {{db-nonsense}} or {{db-test}}.
G3 - Vandalism. Obvious junk that you can understand (and so isn't nonsense) but obviously isn't intended to be the least bit helpful. This includes redirects that get made as a result of someone moving pages around disruptively. Mark these with {{db-vandalism}}
G4 - Recreation of deleted material. If a page is deleted through an XfD debate (see below) and it gets re-created essentially identically to the previous version, it can be speedied under G4. This does not apply to pages deleted under any other method (although another speedy criteria may fit and can be used), or pages that have been "userfyed" (see below). Tag these with {{db-repost}}
G10 - Attacks. If a page is created with the apparently singular purpose of attacking someone, it's a candidate for deletion. Mark these with {{db-attack}}.
G11 - Advertising. If a page is so blatantly advertising (for anything, even a person) that it really doesn't serve any other purpose at all, it can be deleted. {{db-ad}}
G12 - Copyright violations, or "copyvio". If a page meets ALL of these criteria, it should be deleted immediately for GFDL compliance. Tag these with {{db-copyvio|website}}

Direct copy of a non-GFDL-compatible website
No non-copyrighted content in history
All copyvio content added at once by one user
No assertion of permission or fair use, or that content is public domain or freely available.

Article criteria 1 or 3 (A1 or A3) - Little to no context OR no content. For articles that provide no useful information about the subject, are completely empty, or consist only of links elsewhere. Note that an article can be as short as a single sentence but still qualify as a stub. Mark with {{db-empty}}.
A7 - Non-notable subject. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not establish why it is notable. If this is somewhat controversial, consider another deletion method. Mark with {{db-bio}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-band}}, or {{db-web}}.

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

If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}.

Finally, the XfD processes (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allow users to debate on the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what is to become of it. These are not votes - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are considered towards the result of the debate. The template at right shows all the different types of deletion debates. The most frequently used is AfD, Articles for Deletion. Your nomination earlier today should have gone there. 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"?

Soni asked me to run over the test, and I've got a few follow up questions if you don't mind... Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, I thought G3 also applies for hoaxes too, but then echoing your fact that it wasn't an act of vandalism, although it seems as a G10 to me. thoughts?
Also when you mean by "credible indication of importance" is reliable sources that claim why this person is significant in the world. For example a reliable source like a mainstream news agency like BBC claims that person won a Nobel Prize for doing so and so. failure to prove the importance of the person with credible sources or no sources in general is probably going to get deleted. Thoughts? Prabash.Akmeemana 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem much like an attack to me, I wouldn't recommend G10. G3 does apply for hoaxes, but that's not a hoax - it's a person who is trying to write about his girlfriend, and who he believes is the most wonderful person ever. Not a hoax, not an attack. A1 might work, there's no context. As might A7, as there's no credible indication of importance. Speaking of which - a credible indication of importance has nothing to do with sources, which is why it has nothing to do with notability. So, a credible claim of importance might be "John Smith won the gold 400m at the Calgary Olympics" - it passes A7, but the sources might disprove it, pushing it into G3 (hoax). Whereas "John Smith set a new world record at high jump, over 3 metres higher than the previous world record" is an indication of importance, but not a credible one. No sources are required for the decision on whether to A7. Worm^TT(talk) 14:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Test for Deletion

1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?

A * We may use WP:AFD to discuss the reasons why we want to delete the page, and the opposition remarks we keep the page. In the end we reach a consensus and the page is either kept or deleted, this is good because usually in the end both parties are happy with the result Prabash.Akmeemana 20:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We use WP:PROD to nominate an article for an uncontroversial deletion and if there is no opposition party whom wants to keep the article expected, there is a 7 day period where there must be no opposition for it to be deleted. if there is opposition the PROD is scrapped. Prabash.Akmeemana 20:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's good that you understand that PROD is for situations where little discussion is needed and that AfD leads to discussion. It's worth mentioning that PROD cases can also be undeleted very easily, even after the 7 day period is up an objection will undo the PROD. Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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 an article fails notability and is insufficiently sourced and nothing on the article explains the significance of it (particulary BLP's) then it is wise to give it A7. Prabash.Akmeemana 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, notability is irrelevent when it comes to A7 - we use a different standard of "credible indication of importance". Can you let me know what you understand by that phrase? Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

3) First

A This is simply a vandalism G3 page, give it a CSD tag under G3. Prabash.Akmeemana 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Although you haven't reached the course on vandalism, the important thing to know about it is that vandalism is about the intention behind the act, not the outcome of the act. Do you believe that this article is designed to damage the encyclopedia? If a brand new editor who doesn't know the rules writes about their cat, is that vandalism? With these thoughts taken into account, do you still think this is a simple G3? Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

4) Second

A This page of BLP appears to fail notability, I personally would CSD tag this under A7. Prabash.Akmeemana 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've mentioned the different standard for A7, which isn't notability. Do you still feel this fits under A7?

5) Third

A This is a very stupid page, its all gibberish, I would give it a CSD under G1 or patent nonsense. Prabash.Akmeemana 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

nothing more to say on that. Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

6) Fourth

A Ok I an not sure of this one so no CSD, but I can come with a fact that the sources out of the three, only one is reliable. I would bring this to AFd rather than PROD due to possible expected opposition. Prabash.Akmeemana 20:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

, Yes, or the other option is not to delete at all! Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

7) Fifth

A Well I am saying give it a CSD under A7 and G3, its written like a complete hoax and the person isn't notable or even significant. Prabash.Akmeemana 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's lots of options here - I would go for A1, I don't believe there's any context, who is he? What did he do? But the answers you've given are fine.