User:WormTT/Adopt/LoganLopez

LoganLopez (talk · contribs)

Hello LoganLopez, and welcome to my adoption school. Your first assignment is below, and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Bmusician/Adoption, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. The tests in the assignments might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see! →Bmusician 09:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

First Assignment: The Five Pillars - Completed

What are the five pillars? The "five pillars" are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. The first pillar tells us that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and also what it is not. The second pillar states that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. The third pillar states that Wikipedia is free content, and also talks about copyright. The fourth pillar is about civility and "wikiquette". The fifth pillar states that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This means that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it and do not worry about making mistakes. The Core Content Policies The core content policies on Wikipedia are neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiablity. Editing from a neutral point of view (often abbreviated as "NPOV") is required on Wikipedia. Editing from a neutral point of view means representing unbiased and significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and giving due weight to all points of view. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable - so any information unsupported by a reliable source does not belong here. The personal experience or opinion of an editor also does not belong to Wikipedia. Reliable sources Wikipedia uses the word "source" for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic – so whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent. A source that is self-published is in general not considered reliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that. Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable, but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue! There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here. Discussion If there are any questions you have about this lesson, ask them! My job, as your adopter, is to help you with any problem you may have. If you don't have any questions that you need to ask, your next step is to take a short test regarding this lesson. If you are ready to take the test, simply tell me and I will hand it out to you. Test Here's your first test! This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There is no time limit - answer in your own words, and we'll talk about your answers. Please note that simple and short yes/no answers are not acceptable in this test, nor in any future tests. Your best friend says that the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film "is the stupidest and most boring movie ever". Can you add this to the article? Why or why not? Answer: No, because it is not NPOV and it can also be considered original research. Also peoples best friends aren't really cite-able sources anyways. A blog titled "John Doe Fan Blog", that has no affiliation with the subject, states that John Doe will be going to Hong Kong on 7 July. No other source confirms this fact, so can you add this to Wikipedia? Why or why not? Answer: No, because it isn't reliable enough and also things such as blogs, forum posts, and YouTube videos are not considered good sources to derive information from. Is the official Facebook page of KFC a reliable source? Answer: Yes, but you shouldn't only derive your information from there because third party sources are required as well to make sure you get the full scope and keep a NPOV. Well, facebook pages are user-generated content; not really considered reliable. You're right to say that you cannot use facebook as a source because other reliable third-party sources are required for verification. Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. You decide to do a minor copyedit and fix some spelling and grammar errors. 10 minutes later, you get a message from the editor who created the article, saying: "STOP CHANGING MY ARTICLE! I made it and you have no right to edit it without my permission. It's my intellectual property and therefore I own the copyright." How do you respond? Answer: Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Anything submitted to it can be edited by anyone else and you forfeit copyright to the work by submitting it. If you do not wish to have your work edited then you should post it somewhere else. You have just discovered from a friend that the new Chevrolet Malibu is only going to be available in red. Can you add this to the Chevy Malibu article?　Why or why not? Answer: If you can find some reliable source that also states it then sure, but if there is nowhere that says that as well then it is considered original research. Would you consider BBC News a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV? Answer: I think if they did a documentary on The Troubles then sure it would be useful to include it. Since ITV is a competitor to BBC I would not think that any report from BBC would be neutral so that would really be fit for citing. Everybody knows that the sky is blue, right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze. Does he need a source? Answer: He certainly does, because it is common knowledge that the sky is blue because there are probably millions of sources that say so.

Second Assignment: Wikiquette - Completed

What is wikiquette? Wikiquette basically means "wiki ettiquette", and is the etiquette of Wikipedia. I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out. Assume good faith - This is fundamental. 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 MediaWiki software will substitute the four tlides with your signature and timestamp, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. Remember to reply to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. Talk pages should something like this. Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works. How's the pizza? --[[User:John]] :It's great!! --[[User:Jane]] ::I made it myself! --[[User:John]] Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Pizza]]. --[[User:Jane]] :I tend to disagree. --[[User: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. Comment on the edits. NEVER COMMENT ON AN EDITOR. EVER. Discussion Any questions or would you like to take the test? The test is pretty brief...consisting of only three questions! Test Have a look at the following conversation: 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 Position A? Answer: Passat Lover is replying to a question of the "best" car in the world that German or Japanese which in his/her opinion is a Volkswagon Passat (so surprising). Position B? Answer: They are replying to the question "What is the best car in the world?" with Volkswagon Passat. An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible sockpuppet? Answer: No, there could be various different reasons that he knows a lot about templates such as having his own wiki in which is powered also by MediaWiki so he is familiar with Wikitext. He didn't do anything bad so there isn't really a reason to be pointing fingers.

Lesson 3 - Copyright - complete

Third Assignment: Copyright This is probably the most important assignment I'll give, because this is the only one where failure to adhere exactly according to policy will result in an indefinite block from editing the encyclopedia – pay attention. Glossary There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. Here is a glossary of the terms. Term Explanation 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, e.g. 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 CC-BY-SA and GFDL On Wikipedia, you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL. In fact, if you notice, every time when you edit, the following text is underneath the editing window: 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 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (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. Image Copyright on Wikipedia Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. As I said before, any work that is submitted must be released under the CC-BY-SA License and the GFDL. There are two types of images on Wikipedia, free images and non-free images. Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere. Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of the non free content criteria in order to use them. What is fair use? Copyright symbol 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 picture of George W. Bush from the White House. Normally government works are automatically public domain, but let's say for the purpose of this discussion that the White House holds the copyright to that particular picture of the President. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a speech Bush is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) This 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. When people refer to Commons on Wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to Wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since Commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to Commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias. For a full description of the policies and guidelines concerning fair use, read WP:FU. Discussion This is a pretty complex topic; is there anything you don't understand? Or are you ready for the test? What defines "low resolution for a picture" and how can you explain that you are not impacting the marketing role of the rights holder? Sorry Logan! I didn't notice this when I moved it over. Low resolution is pretty hard to define, it means basically that it's the smallest it can be whilst still being useful. So, if you're going to have it as a thumbnail, the image doesn't need to be much bigger than the thumbnail. You are impacting the marketing role of the rights holder when you use a non free image. However, educational purposes is a fair usage for the image, and as long as we minimise the harm, we're on fairly sturdy grounds. WormTT(talk) 20:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Okay thank you for the clarification. I am ready for the test!--LoganLopez (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Test Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free? A- Yes, because anyone can edit it and reuse the information as long as they are compliant with CC-BY-SA and/or the GFDL. Also it is provided free of charge so it satisfies both definitions of "free as in freedom" and "free as in free beer". Very good. It's always interesting to hear opinions on that :) Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons? A- When it is your own work and you license it under a free license that is approved by Commons. Also sometimes of other works that are licensed under free licenses such as software screenshots. Software screenshots? Care to elaborate (or maybe give an example?) Like screenshots of open source software can be taken but they must be licensed under whatever license is the software (like GPL). I actually took one for Jarnal. Ah, right. Well, that one's absolutely fine because Jarnal is released under GNU General Public License but I do think that most screenshots of software are not. For example, this screenshot isn't free. Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons? A- No because Commons doesn't allow works that restrict it to non-commercial uses. Very good. Few people spot this one. Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition. A- No because it is a derivative work upon the copyrighted Beatles albums which would also become copyrighted by Apple Records or whoever now owns the copyright to the albums. Exactly, his composition might be licensed correctly, but the main works aren't. Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope? A- No because it is replaceable because you can go to Rome or where ever he is at the time and take a picture of him. Yep Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row? A- Most likely yes because usually it is close to impossible to get another picture of someone under those circumstances but personality rights might be a problem. It's a tough one really. He's still alive, but you can't just get a photo of him. I'd expect a lot of discussion over this, and whilst your answer isn't wrong, it may not be right ;) 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- Post on the talk page that the text has been copied from a non compatible source and that it should be changed to not be copyright infringing. Also nominating the article for speedy deletion using the Db-g12 template. Sounds good to me. The G12 is the important bit, if it matches exactly. Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move? A- Yes because the source may not license it for redistribution or the licenses of the source and the recipient may have licensesthat are not compatible with each other. Ok, a bit of a headache there. I meant cut-and-paste move on wikipedia. So, say I wanted to move Doom Bar to Doom bar, could I edit the first, copy the wiki text, and past it into the latter? Why or why not? No because there is already a move function for that and also then there will be 2 identical articles which will mean that just by simple capitalization you might get 2 different articles on the same thing once it gets edited a lot. Simply move it and then make a redirect on the old page so people can still get to it. Not quite, but very nearly. The important bit about the move function is that it takes the entire history of the article with it. That history is needed for attribution purposes, so we know who wrote added or removed every letter. It's a requirement of the license that we use. If someone does cut and paste, a history merge is required to sort it out. Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!) A- File:Setthefire.JPG found it using the random article link. Very good. I'm now listening to it ;) Results All good, let me know when you're ready for the next module. I'm ready!--LoganLopez (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lesson 4 - Dispute Resolution - Complete

Dispute resolution 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. Any questions? A lot of information but everything seems pretty straightforward I'm ready for the test.--LoganLopez (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Dispute resolution 1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss? A- You make a bold edit, someone reverts it and then you discuss on the talk page on how to come up with a compromise. That's good. 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, because it is just unproductive. The one who wins is whoever is able to stop it and actually get them to do some useful editing. Exactly! Discussion is key, reverting is useless, no one wins out of that. 3) What is vandalism? A- Putting stupid or nonsense things onto pages, like this. That's one form of vandalism, yes, but so is changing football scores, or creating hoax articles. Basically it's anything that intentionally harms the encyclopedia, and it's the word intentionally that really matters. If it's not intentionally harming, then it's not vandalism. 4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment? A- Editor assistance is really for when you need another editor to help you with something. Third opinion is like an informal way of dispute resolution while RfC is the next level up and it is a formal way of resolution. Yep. 3O is for when there's two of you discussing something and you need someone to offer an opinion. RfC gets lots of people in. EA is just a place to go for a bit of help. Sorry for me taking so long on this one, I just got back into school and so I have been busy with all that sort of stuff so I really forgot about this completely.--LoganLopez (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC) It's quite alright! I'm really being slow at the moment with adoption - I've got a lot on my plate! Sorry about my delay.

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 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" I would like the test--LoganLopez (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

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

A- PROD you could use for things like say a page that isn't really informational or important, but yet has some text and isn't exactly nonsense. AfD could be used as in one case I dealt with that there was suspicion that the page was a bit too shady from where it came from and also the company behind the software

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

A- A Wikipedian who is new and doesn't know all the rules so they make a page on a bio of themselves. Also some page that doesn't really show the significance the thing has.

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

3)First

A- The first one can be deleted under G3

4)Second

A- I'm trying a shot in the dark and my best guess is A7.

5)Third

A- G1 obviously

6)Fourth

A- A3

7)Fifth

A- I can say with confidence that this one is A7.

I am sorry for taking so long to answer the test! When you gave it to me it was around the time school began so then I put it to the side and then kept on forgetting about it until now. It would either be that I remembered I needed to finish and I was busy or when I was free I would forget.--LoganLopez (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)