User:Missionedit/Adoption/FiendYT

A few questions to start off:

1) Would you prefer to be called FiendYT, Fiend, or something else? 2) Why do you contribute to Wikipedia? 3) What time zone do you live in? 4) What do you expect to get out of this mentorship? 5) What picture would you like on this page to represent you? It can be a picture of anything, and it doesn't have to be one that you've uploaded yourself. For some examples, see User:Missionedit/Adoption/Molly's Mind or User:Missionedit/Adoption/Hisashiyarouin. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

1) I would like to be called Fiend please. 2) I originally contributed to Wikipedia because I saw my private school, Challenger schools did not have an article. After that, I usually edit Wikipedia because I want to help other people have quality information on topics, and to stop the trend that Wikipedia is unreliable. 3) I live in the PCF or Pacific timezone. 4) I expect to receive skills and tips on editing Wikipedia. I really want to learn the right format to use for articles, and many other types of things, like Vandalism and such. I also want to improve myself in general as a Wikipedian. 5) File:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg. This picture of the F-15 fighter jet represents me very much, for I always want to be quick and efficient. Relating to the picture, I always want to keep soaring high in my life and keep improving and advancing. I also like Aviation in general.


 * Great! Don't forget to sign your posts on this page. I'll put your first lesson up ASAP. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Anastasia! I look forward to your lessons! FiendYT (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 1: Wikiquette
"Wikiquette" is a portmanteau of "Wikipedia" and "etiquette". It is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.

Assuming good faith
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.

Threading
Threading is an organized way of replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. 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. When you want to respond to the original post, 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. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.

Avoiding common mistakes
Avoid these mistakes which have been made by many an editor:
 * Don't create autobiographical articles or articles about someone close to you, company articles, dictionary-type articles (we have Wiktionary for that), or 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. Also, try not to delete valuable content just because it's poorly written and biased; instead, just rewrite it.
 * Don't self-reference (referencing the Wikipedia project in article space)
 * Don't use external links in places other than the external link section in an article
 * Don't add your signature ( ~ ) any place but a talk page, but always remember to use your signature on talk pages.
 * Edit instead of criticize and be bold!
 * Remain level-headed in arguments (if you feel you're getting too heated, walk away and bring in a third party)
 * Don't get annoyed when you see bad articles or drastic edits (or even deletion) of your work. :)

Signatures
There are also Wikiquette rules for signatures. Some people like to customize their signature using CSS and other code. There are a few no-nos, though.
 * 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 also a big mistake.
 * Don't make your signature too big. This can effect the way the surrounding text is displayed. Be sparing with your superscript and subscript, too. It can sometimes cause a similar problem. Don't make your signature too small, either, then 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 without a problem.
 * 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 if you really want, because these are technically fonts and not images.
 * Keep your signatures short enough that they don't take up a whole line of text when you comment.
 * Make sure that your signature always links to at least your user page, talk page, and/or contributions page.
 * Don't include any external links at all or internal links that have no purpose to building the encyclopedia.
 * Assume good faith when approaching someone who has these problem signatures and be polite.

End of lesson 1
Any questions? You can call me Stasia if you like; it is shorter to type :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No questions here! You can continue with lesson 2 Stasia (: FiendYT (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 2: Reliable sources
For more information on this topic see Reliable sources. There will be test after this lesson just to make sure you understand it. If any specific questions do come up, we can do a lesson on it :)

On Wikipedia, the word "source" can mean three different, interchangeable things: either a piece of work, the writer of the work, or the creator of the work. Therefore, a reliable source is a published material from a reliable publisher (such as a university), or an author who is known for the subject that they are covering, such as L. David Mech, a wolf expert, speaking about wolves, or a fiction author being interviewed about their own work. Or it could be a combination, 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 so with other topics. For instance, the book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation by L. David Mech only talks about real wolves. While would be considered a reliable source when talking about wolf behaviors and conservation, it may not be the best authority for talking about Little Red Riding Hood :)

Self-published sources are considered unreliable because false information could be published this way. However, this rule doesn't apply to self-published sources talking about themselves. Let's say that Orson Scott Card wrote a post on his website about his inspiration for the Ender's Game series. Because it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, you could add that information in the section called "Creation and inspiration".

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! Never cite a Wikipedia article in another mainspace Wikipedia article. Other sites that have an "anyone can edit" policy like Wikipedia are not considered reliable sources.

In addition, anything that is common knowledge (eg. the sky is blue) does not need to be sourced, just like in a reference paper. Saying that snow melts when it gets warm outside is not going to need a source.

End of lesson 2
Any questions before the test? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All good Captain! Eager to do this test and ace it! (: FiendYT (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Test
1.) Q- A friend just told you that Mitt Romney has been appointed Chancellor of Harvard University. Should you add this to Romney and/or Harvard's pages? Why or why not?


 * A- I would not add this to Romney or Harvard's pages because my friend is not a reliable source, unless he is a close friend or associate of Mitt Romney or Harvard. I would search for reliable sources to prove my friend right. FiendYT (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ You should only add this fact to an article if you can find and cite reliable sources which show it to be true.

2.) Q- The New York Times has published a cartoon as part of an article which you think is blatantly racist. Can you use this cartoon on Wikipedia to support the fact that the New York Times is a racist newspaper? (assuming the cartoon is freely licensed with no copyright restrictions)


 * A- No, because opinion has no effect in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not based on opinion, but fact. If someone thinks it is racist, it doesn't mean the majority thinks its racist. FiendYT (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ If you found some other reliable sources that call that cartoon racist, or about NYT being racist in general, that would be a different story. Then you could possibly add a section to the NYT article on racism accusations, depending on how well-covered that subject is in the media.

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. Should you include this information on the socialist, capitalist, cancer, or diabetes pages?


 * A- I will not add that on any of the pages unless I found more sources stating the same as that article. FiendYT (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * More importantly, this fact is probably not something that should be included in Wikipedia; it is very specific and not verifiable, and doesn't really contribute to the coverage or quality of the encyclopedia, and will only promote controversy. So it's most likely best not to include it in an article.

4.) Q- Would you consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft? Why or why not?


 * A- I would not consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft because the information might be biased. Companies tend to portray their opponents in the worst light. FiendYT (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Exactly.

5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page as a reliable source? Why or why not?


 * A- I will partly consider it as a reliable source, because the page might have some biased information. If referencing it to an article, I would add this source with another reference to confirm the reliability. FiendYT (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Twitter is not usually considered a reliable source, but it can be used in certain circumstances. See WP:TWITTER for more information.

6.) Q- An unnamed "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the Chicago Tribune's stance on world hunger (on the forum). Is this considered a reliable source? Why or why not?


 * A- The "forum official" may or may not be related to the Chicago Tribune on its views and points. The "forum official" might not even be an official forum official, and might be an imposter. FiendYT (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ You have no way of knowing if this official even has the authority to speak for the Tribune, and this reason alone is enough to discredit him as a credible source.

7.) Q- Would you consider the "about us" section on Burger King's website to be a reliable source for information on the history of Burger King? Why or why not?


 * A- I would consider as a reliable source to consider what Burger King states about its history. Mostly, they would be the best history source because the own company should know its past better than anyone else. FiendYT (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with this kind of source is that there is no way to tell if the company is exaggerating their information. Still, this information may not be available anywhere anywhere else, so you can use it (along with other sources preferably) to support an article on Wikipedia.

8.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue except for one editor, who says that it's bronze. Do you need a source to prove to him the sky is blue? Why or why not?


 * A- That one editor who says it's bronze is probably mentally retarded or color blind. I would reference a source on why the sky is blue just to let him know that he is wrong. FiendYT (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL You can show the editor a source and maybe get him a book on color blindness, but because the color of the sky is common knowledge, you don't need to cite a source about it in a article.

9.) Q- Is Harrison Ford's IMDb profile considered a reliable source for his article on Wikipedia? Why or why not?


 * A- I would consider it a reliable source because it uses many sources to prove the accuracy of its information. FiendYT (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * IMDb is similar to Wikipedia in that almost anyone can create an account and edit it, and for this reason Wikipedia does not consider it a reliable source. See WP:Citing IMDb for more about this.

End of test
Good luck! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Finished! Hope I did well! FiendYT (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pass! Great job on most of the questions. Just so you know, you don't have to sign after every question you answer, only at the end of the test :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 3: The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
These are the five "pillars", or fundamental principles, of Wikipedia. I've reworded them a little from the original to further explain/simplify.
 * BluePillar.svg 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.


 * GreenPillar.svg Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
 * Wikipedia strives for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We present no such opinion as being "the truth" or "the right position" (in theory). Every allegation must be backed up by references, especially when concerning a controversial topic or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.


 * YellowPillar.svg Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute.
 * Wikipedia is free for others to edit, use, modify, and distribute. No editor owns an article, so everything you write is free to be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources.


 * OrangePillar.svg Editors should treat each other with respect and civility.
 * Wikipedia has millions of editors who are bound to disagree on some topics. If a conflict arises, you should discuss your disagreement on the nearest talk page and remain level-headed without accusing. Just because another editor may be attacking you does not mean that you should to engage in similar behavior.


 * RedPillar.svg Wikipedia has no firm rules.
 * Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and nothing is carved in stone. Sometimes improving Wikipedia means making 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.

End of lesson 3
Any questions? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope! All good to me Stasia! FiendYT 18:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 4: Citations
Most of this information can be found at Citing sources.

Types of citation
There are many types of citations acceptable to use on Wikipedia. Here are a few of them:
 * Full citation: A citation fully identifying a reliable source. For example:  You may notice that this citation is not in MLA or APA format. The format used for citations on Wikipedia is different and specific to Wikipedia.
 * Inline citation: An in-text citation added after the material that it supports. It is usually in the form of a footnote and placed after a sentence or paragraph. The actually citation is found in section near the bottom of the page under a heading like "References" or "Footnotes".
 * General reference: A citation to a reliable source given at the bottom of the article to support it as a whole, but is not linked to any particular piece of material. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "General references" section, similar to a bibliography. These may be found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed by author alphabetically in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations.
 * Short citation: An inline citation with an abbreviated form of the whole source, like parenthetical documentation. e.g.  These are usually used when different pages of the same book are cited in different places, or as an alternative to named refs, which we will learn a little later in this lesson.
 * In-text attribution: This is usually used when citing opinions and quotations of individuals. An example would be a sentence beginning.

When and why to cite sources
Wikipedia cites sources to maintain verifiablity. If a source is verifiable, that means that its facts can be backed up by other reliable sources to make sure that the source (in this case, Wikipedia) does not have faulty information. Sources should not be included for common knowledge (e.g. "If you jump off a cliff you will get hurt" or "The sky is blue"), but should always be provided for controversial topics. The idea is to write articles based off of sources, not to write articles off your own knowledge and then find sources to support them. This is really not what is supposed to happen; however, many people still do it.

Inline citations
Inline citations help Wikipedia become even more verifiable by linking directly to the information which specifically supports a line of text or a fact. As a general rule, an article should have more inline citations than any other kind, and the more, the better! The most simple and common way to an create and inline citation in a Wikipedia article is by using ref tags. To use this method, you put the full citation in the text of the article where you want the footnote to go and add  before the citation and   right after. Under a section at the bottom of the article called "References", we type  and nothing else. This will automatically list the citations at the bottom in the order they are placed in the text. For example, we could write  Then we would put at the bottom, and the article would show up like this:

As of 2006, about 3000 professional mangaka were working in Japan.

== References == 1. ∧ McCarthy, Helen (2006). "Manga: A Brief History". 500 Manga Heroes & Villains. Hauppauge, New York, USA: Chrysalis Book Group. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-7641-3201-8.

Citation style
Wikipedia has a different style of citation format, so it's best not to use MLA or APA. An easy way to make sure all citations are formatted correctly is by using citation templates. Template:Citation Style 1 contains a list of citation templates for different kinds of sources. For this example, let's use. Go down to the section on the page titled "Full parameter set in horizontal format" and copy it. Paste it where you want the reference in the article to go, and then add the ref tags to both sides so that it shows up under "References" at the bottom. To create the citation, fill out everything you can in the template (you can delete the sections, called parameters, which you don't use). Voilá! The reference shows up correctly formatted!

What information to include
Simply, anything that you can find about the source! This includes, but is not limited to:
 * title of the work
 * author(s)
 * date/year published
 * publisher
 * isbn number
 * publisher location
 * url

Text-source integrity
To maintain text-source integrity, do not construe information so that that the information appears to come from a source it doesn't. Consider the following (assume the source is the one we've been using):


 * As of 2006, about 3000 professional mangaka were working in Japan.

Now consider the following sentence:


 * As of 2006, about 3000 professional mangaka were working in Japan, most of whom lived in Tokyo.

Nowhere in the book does it mention that most professional mangaka live in Tokyo, so you would need to move the reference or the added information so that it does not appear that way.

Named refs
Sometimes people add the same source citation over and over so that even though there are only a few sources to an article, the reference list is very long, full of repeated citations. Although this is technically acceptable, it is not very efficient. The "ref name" template shortens the reference list to only a few citations, each connected to multiple footnotes. It's much simpler than it sounds :) To use this style, replace the opening/front tag with . For the source we've been using, you could call it , or  , or really any name that helps you remember which source it is. After using this first citation, if you would like to use the same citation again for another sentence, you can put   (or with whatever other nickname you've given the source) and that footnote would lead to the first source. This can be confusing at first, so feel free to experiment in your sandbox and ask questions. Sometimes the best way to learn is to do :)

Other helpful pages
I have showed you the most common referencing techniques in use on Wikipedia, but there are many other acceptable ways which are not used as often. Here are some pages which may be useful:
 * Help:References and page numbers
 * Help:Referencing for beginners
 * Citing sources
 * Citation templates

End of lesson 4
Any questions? I know this stuff can be confusing sometimes. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty confusing! I'm just having trouble citing books, newspapers, and such. I have that tool where you can automatically cite a website by just going on it, but I'm having a little trouble with citing non-web sources. FiendYT 19:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Citation templates can be a big help with that. There's a list of all of them at WP:Citation templates. You just fill in the parameters with the information (title, author, ect.) and it will format the citation for you. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 5: Vandalism
I just realized we should probably go over vandalism first before we learn about deletion :) This lesson has been ruthlessly pinched from the vandalism lessons of User:Brambleberry of RiverClan and User:Hersfold, with a few of my own touches.

What we're going to do now is get started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, many people prefer to do other things. But it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia, and you are likely to run into some. Should you ever wish become an administrator, you will be expected to deal with vandalism at least in some respect.

Some background on vandalism
Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse: while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work being done 24/7 by well-intentioned editors to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy Wikipedia. Fortunately, with the enormous amount of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. Various tools aid our cause and help us "revert", or remove, vandalism within minutes or even seconds.

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

Special:RecentChanges
The tool most commonly used to combat vandalism is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across Wikipedia within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left of any page on Wikipedia. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
 * (diff) (hist) . . Shigeru Miyamoto; 14:32 . . (+28) . . 201.152.102.192 (Talk) (→ Competition with Sony and Microsoft )

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

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

IMPORTANT WARNING
Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (FiendYT''' 04:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:

How to Revert
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I would suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. Then save your preferences and refresh the page. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more information can be found at WP:TWINKLE. To revert vandalism, you go to "View history" on a page. Now click the "Compare selected revisions" button and find the vandalism reversion. Since you now 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 (hence AGF, Assuming 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 many different templates available to warn vandals after you've reverted their edit. I would recommend using Twinkle. If you are, the first step will be under the "Wel" button, while the rest will be under "Warn":


 * 1) If this is a new editor's first edit, you welcome them and use either  if they have a username or  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)". is the general, though if you can get more specific, try.
 * 1) If they are still vandalizing, you use a "Caution (2)".
 * 2) If they continue to vandalize, you use a "Warning (3)".
 * 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.

WP:AIV
Occasionally, you'll get an editor who won't stop vandalizing even after the final warning. When this happens, there is no choice left but to block them, which is something only an administrator can do. AIV, or Administrator intervention against vandalism is just for this specific purpose. You can report them using Twinkle, as Twinkle has the option "ARV", which allows you to fill out a form that get sent to WP:AIV. Once it gets sent, 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.

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. Then you can give them two warnings: one for vandalism and one for personal attacks. If something like this happens, you just have to take it in stride. Personally, being a Christian, I find vandals forgivable. But without that factor, I guess you just have to remember that there will be mean people in the world, and that you can't let them get you down. Just revert their offence and hand them a uw-npa warning of whatever severity you deem necessary.

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

End of lesson 5
Tah-dah! You have just successfully read through one of the longest and most tedious lessons of this course. If you have problems with Twinkle or any other questions please tell me. The point of your assignment is to get you familiar with finding vandalism. After you find a couple instances, we can then move on to reverting vandalism. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tah-dah! Finally got through this long lesson. I'll read over it just in case I missed something. I also finished the assignment of listing the vandalism! FiendYT 04:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great job! All the instances of vandalism you found were examples of page blanking. Now, go find at least one instance of vandalism and revert it. To do this, you can either use the Twinkle button on the history page, or you can revert it manually by editing the page and removing/adding the vandalized content. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wooh! Finally! Here's one. This user and I, I have a feeling, were competing to see who can revert vandalism the fastest. My god... FiendYT 01:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha yeah sometimes that happens. Good job :) Now that you've got the just of that, we'll move on to deletion. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 6: Deletion
Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and the deletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. 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. This lesson will have a test.

WP: CSD
WP:CSD, short for "Criterion for speedy deletion", is, in its most practical form, a tag which you place on articles that need to be deleted "speedily", or as soon as possible. These are the following criterion for speedy deletion in article space (you rarely need to use it in any other space):
 * G1. Patent nonsense: Basically total gibberish or words that seem like they're supposed to mean something, but make no sense at all.
 * G2. Test page: A page used for Wikipedia testing. It can be hard to distinguish between this and G1 sometimes, but test pages are usually something like only bold/italics marks, a user's name written all over the page, an empty page that looks like it was created accidentally in article space, etc.
 * G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes: Anything that is obviously vandalism or a hoax.
 * G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: A identical (or almost identical) copy of a previously deleted article.
 * G5. Creations by banned or blocked users: Pages that a banned or blocked user try to create under their block or ban. This one is pretty rare.
 * G6. Technical deletions: Pages that serve no purpose, like a disambiguation page with one link.
 * G7. Author requests deletion: If only one person has edited a page and the talk page and wants the article to go, they file it under G7. Page blanking by the author falls under G7 too.
 * G8. Pages dependent on a nonexistent or deleted page: e.g. a redirect that redirects to a deleted page.
 * G9. Office actions: The Wikimedia Foundation requests deletion. Extremely rare -- neither you nor I can request CSD per G9.
 * G10. Attack pages: Pages intended to put down or harass someone else-- e.g. "Missionedit and Scribbleink SUCK!!!!"
 * G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion: e.g. "Come to JIM'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE! Crazy prices! Unbelievable furniture condition!"
 * G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement: Complete and obvious plagiarism from copyrighted source(s).
 * G13. Abandoned articles for creation submissions: An Articles for Creation submission that hasn't been edited in over 6 months.
 * A1. No context: A very short article that doesn't tell you who/what the article is about.
 * A2. Foreign language articles that already exist somewhere: E.g. an article written in French that already exists either on the French Wikipedia or (in English) on the English Wikipedia.
 * A3. No content: There is no actual prose here, only links/templates/images.
 * A5. Transwikied articles: E.g. a dictionary definition that is already at Wiktionary.
 * A7. No indication of importance: Any article on an individual, individual animal, organization, web content, or organized event that does not tell you why the thing is notable.
 * A9. No indication of importance (musical recording): An article about a musical recording that has no article about the artist and does not indicate why the recording is notable.
 * A10. Duplicate article: An article already covered somewhere on the English Wikipedia that does not give any further information, and the title is not a plausible redirect.

You should wait at least ten minutes after an article is created before tagging an article with either A1 or A3, because the author may add more information in that time that would render the CSD templates void.

WP:PROD
PROD, short for "Proposed deletion", is what you use 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. Someone can always contest your PROD, in which case you should take it to AfD. To PROD an article, add the template to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template.

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 to use in a moment. PRODs also come with a notice for the author,.

WP:XfD
WP:XFD (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allows users to debate the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what to do with it. This does not involve voting - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are (or should be) considered when concluding the debate. We will do the next lesson specifically on this subject, "votes" and consensus, an interesting topic in itself. The template to the right shows all the different types of deletion debates. 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. The most frequently used XfD is AfD, Articles for Deletion.

WP:AfD
WP:AFD, short for "Articles for deletion", is where you go if you think something should be deleted but want to be sure. You can list it at AfD using Twinkle under the XFD button and then say why you think it should be deleted. Then the usual consensus debate process is followed. If you ever want to become an administrator, AfD is a great thing to be involved in.

End of lesson 6
Questions before the test? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope! Seems all good to me! FiendYT 04:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This might seem a little off topic, but may you help me with this article I am creating in my sandbox right now. It's about Douglas Baker, a World War II flying ace. I don't know how to fix these problems with the Wiki Markup for the Military Awards section. I also need some help on the article itself. User:FiendYT/sandbox FiendYT 02:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Test
'''Questions 4-7 are hypothetical scenarios. Answer what CSD/PROD criterion (if any) you would tag these articles under. '''

1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you would use PROD.
 * A- I would use PROD when an article does not necessarily meet the requirements for CSD, nor is it worth the time for an AFD discussion.
 * ✅ Basically. PROD is not used very often; most of the time it is used on biographies of living people ("BLPs") that cite no sources.

2.) Q- You tag a recently created article for CSD under A7. The creator then blanks the page. What should you do?
 * A- I would then also tag the page for CSD under G7, since the author blanked the page.
 * ✅ This is weird situation, but generally this is the right thing to do.

3.) Q- Why should you wait before tagging an article for A1 or A3?
 * A- I should wait before tagging an article for A1 or A3 because since the article was newly created, the author still might have more information to add in time after time. I would wait for about 10-30 min before tagging to see if the author or anyone else added more information.
 * ✅ Waiting even longer is sometimes wise.

4.) Q- You find an article which says: Mike Smith is so nice and awesome and the best person I've ever met! He always has a beer and a hot dog for you! His fiancée Ashley is really cool too!
 * A- I would tag this CSD under A1 and A7 (unremarkable person).
 * A1 doesn't really apply here because you do know what the article is about. G11 (advertising) is more applicable.

5.) Q- You find an article which says: ajdflajsdlfjalghaiefjalsfj
 * A- I would tag this CSD under both G1 and G2.
 * ✅ G1 is probably sufficient in this case.

6.) Q- You find an article (with no sources) which says: Joe Garrison is a trumpeter in the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. He used to be in the Boston Pops. He likes to read and swim when he's not playing the trumpet.
 * A- I would tag this CSD under A7 (unremarkable musician or band).
 * Since the article does state that Joe is in two very prestigious bands, it does indicate his importance to some degree. BLP PROD would be more appropriate, since it is an article about a living person that has no sources.

7.) Q- You find an article which says: On the night of 22 April 1941, during the the blitz, over 70 civilians were killed, including a mother and her six children, when a bomb fell on the shelter near the Planetarium. The bomb shelter consisted of a series of underground tunnels which many had long-presumed lost but were rediscovered in 2006. The bomb blast was so big that human remains were found in the tops of trees. In 2006 an appeal was made to raise money for a public sculpture to honour those who lost their lives. (This one's a tricky one, but ask yourself: do you know what the article is talking about?)
 * A- I'm not sure if this is correct, but I would tag this CSD under A1.
 * ✅ Exactly. If you can't figure out the subject of the article, tag it under A1.

8.) Assignment- find an article worthy of deletion (CSD, PROD, or AFD), and tag it/begin the process. Please explain what you did and why you did it below.
 * A- I couldn't find many reliable sources on this person. The article also doesn't explain why the person was significant.
 * ✅ Good job; the article has been deleted by an administrator.

End of test
I will definitely try and help you with your article. For one, headings in articles should be written in sentence format (eg. "Military Career" should be "Military career"). ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done with the test! I'm not sure if I did the last question correct though. Oh well, hope I did well! FiendYT 07:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You pass :) We'll do a lesson on consensus and "voting" next, followed by a lesson on templates and then the manual of style, if that's good by you. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that is more than fine Stasia! (: FiendYT 17:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 7: Consensus and "voting"
Since Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, when we have a disagreement on something, we go by consensus. According to Dictionary.com, the definition of consensus is "majority of opinion" or "general agreement or concord". You can add your opinion to the debate by "voting". However, this type of voting is not like voting in an election or a poll. It is more like in a debate, where each comment contributes a new idea to keep the discussion going so that a consensus can be reached. (Interesting fact: WP:Articles for Deletion used to be called Votes for Deletion, but the name was later changed as a result of consensus.)

"Voting"
As you may know by now, a "vote" usually begins with Support or Oppose. However, just saying "Support" is very different than saying Support - User has been a loyal host at the Teahouse since its inception, shows a good article track record, and has enough experience in the administrative work they intend to participate in that I have no concerns with them using the tools." You see, it is necessary to explain why you have "voted" support or oppose; otherwise, it will just be a stack of votes with no reasoning behind them.

Articles for deletion
These are the following "votes" you can use at AfD (Articles for Deletion):
 * Keep - Keep the article as is; it should not be deleted.
 * Speedy keep - The article has much value to the encyclopedia; nomination may have been in bad faith.
 * Delete - The article shows no purpose on the encyclopedia and should be trashed.
 * Speedy delete - The article falls under CSD and should have been listed under that in the first place.
 * Merge - The article does not deserve its own page, but has some valuable information that can be put in another article.
 * Redirect - The article does not deserve its own page, and any valuable information it has is already in another article.
 * Userfy - Put it in the creator's sandbox until they can fix it.
 * Transwiki - Move the article to another wiki, (eg. move a dictionary definition to Wiktionary).
 * Comment - You're not "voting", but you have something you have to say which will add to the discussion.

Requests for adminship/bureaucratship
These are the following "votes" that you can use in RfAs and RfBs, as well as other community discussions:
 * Support - User would make a good administrator or bureaucrat.
 * Oppose - User would not make a good administrator or bureaucrat.
 * Neutral - User might make a good administrator or bureaucrat, but there are some concerns.

You can add "Strong" or "Weak" to "Support" and "Oppose". Or you can also go for a more humorous approach, eg. "Oh my goodness yes". It's usually in better taste to have a humorous vote for a support than an oppose :)

Bad arguments
There are many bad arguments that you should avoid on Wikipedia when participating in discussions. Please read these pages:
 * AfDs: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
 * RfAs/Bs: Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions

End of lesson 7
There's no test on this one, just an assignment: participate in 3 AfDs and in 1 RfA or RfB. Make your opinions well-researched and thoughtful! You can vote in AfDs at Articles for deletion. You can vote for RfAs or RfBs at Requests for adminship. I'll be gone for the next few weeks, so you can finish the assignment and we'll continue with lessons when I get back. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I might not finish the assignment either, since I'll be spending time with family over the Christmas! Merry Christmas and Happy New Years to you too! FiendYT 05:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've participated in one AFD so far. I will update eventually.
 * How were your holidays? Good job with those AfDs :) Have you voted in an RfA/RfB yet? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My holiday was great! How was yours? There are currently no Rfa/Rfbs running at the moment, so we'll have to wait on that. Nice seeing you back (: FiendYT 23:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! My holiday was very busy :) My bad, I forgot to check. We can just skip that part of the assignment then--moving on to templates.

Lesson 8: Templates 101
This lesson is mostly taken from User:Hersfold/Adopt/Templates and 's adoption course.

Template basics
Depending on how much time you've spent around Wikipedia, you've probably had some experience with templates already. Templates allow you to post large sections of text or complicated sections of code while only typing a few characters. All templates have "Template:" as a prefix (eg. Template:Cite web or Template:User Sandbox). Templates work similarly to regular links, but instead of using double square brackets, you use. To "call" a template, just type the title of the template between the double curly brackets. Whenever you call a template, all the content on the template page will be displayed. You don't need to include the "Template:" prefix; the MediaWiki software automatically searches within the Template namespace for what you're looking for. Only if the page you're looking for is in a different namespace (has different prefix), such as "User:" or "Wikipedia:", do you need to specify it. See below:

Here is a summary of the most common templates:

Infoboxes
Infoboxes, short for "information boxes", are little boxes to the side of articles that give quick details about the article. For example, on Justice (sculpture), the box to the side shows a picture and tells you the artist, year, type, material, dimensions, location, and owner. On José Maria Larocca, the box to the side shows a picture and tells you his full name, nationality, discipline, birth date, birth place, height, weight, and horses. You can find a grand list of every kind of infobox at Category:Infobox templates, where you can narrow it down to a specific type of infobox. For example, the infobox for a specific species would be Template:Taxobox. Template:Infobox animal is for a specific animal.

Navboxes
Navigational boxes, or "navboxes", are templates placed at the bottom of a page that allow you to easily jump between related articles. Some examples are Template:Music of Japan, Template:One Piece, and Template:Harry Potter. These are also the easiest to create. You can follow the instructions at Template:Navbox to create one by filling in the parameters and then putting the result at Template:Name of the navbox. Then you put  at the bottom of all the articles listed in the navbox.

Stub templates
Stub templates call very short articles to the attention of people who are willing to expand them. They can be as basic as or as detailed as  The idea is to get as detailed as possible. For example, I used Template:2010s-album-stub on the stub Shotto instead of just Template:Album-stub. If you want to look at all the different stub templates, go to Category:Stub message templates or WP:WikiProject Stub sorting.

Tags
If you see a problem with an article, e.g. it has no citations, bare urls, or contradicts itself, you can "tag" it with one of the article message templates provided. These go at the top of the article, and need a  parameter to be sorted properly.

Other templates
There are a variety of other templates, including These are only the most common templates; there are many others that you can use.
 * User warning templates, listed at WP:User warning templates
 * Welcome templates, listed at Welcoming committee/Welcome templates
 * Talkback templates
 * Deletion templates

End of lesson 8
These are only the very basics of templates. We can cover more advanced stuff later, if you really want to. Any questions? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand these basic templates. We can cover the templates later, but not now. I have no questions and it's all fine :D! FiendYT 04:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 9: Manual of Style
The Manual of Style is the style guide for all Wikipedia articles. Sometimes adopters neglect giving a lesson on it, but I think the MOS a very important and necessary part of Wikipedia, and deserves its own lesson :) 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 the capitalization is weird.
 * When dealing a title that should be italicized, such as Tailchaser's Song, Django Unchained, or 30 Rock, you put italic title as the first line of the article text. This makes it appear italicized.
 * Do not use a, an, or the to begin a title unless it is part of the title of the work. For example "Economic impact of dingoes", should not be "The economic impact of dingoes". A Clockwork Orange is a correct title because "a" is part of the title of the work.
 * Titles should normally be nouns or noun phrases.
 * The final visible character of a title should not be a punctuation mark unless it is part of the name (Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!), an abbreviation (Inverness City F.C.), or a closing parentheses for a disambiguation (George Washington (inventor))
 * The sections and information of an article should be organized in the following order, with the information in bold font being the proper header for that section:
 * Lead section with article summary
 * Article body with main information and sections as necessary
 * Works/Bibliography/Discography - Written or musical works by the subject
 * See also - Internal links related to the article
 * References - Notes and references
 * Further reading - Relevant publications that have not been used as sources
 * External links - Relevant websites, usually including the official website of the subject
 * Navigational boxes
 * Categories
 * Interlanguage links (if applicable)
 * 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 the subject is a question

Spelling and grammar in different forms of English
There are many different kinds of English from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. To make sure the English style used throughout an article is consistent, sometimes an invisible template such as Use American English, Use British English, or Use Irish English, is placed at the top. Otherwise, it's best to try and follow the style the rest of the article is written in to keep it consistent.

Capital letters

 * Do not use capital letters for emphasis. If absolutely necessary, you can use italics.
 * Do not italicize articles title that are not the title of a work (e.g., not United Kingdom, but The Lord of the Rings)
 * Do not capitalize words such as "president" or "king" unless they apply to an honorific title (e.g. "a Scottish king" vs. "King David II of Scotland")
 * Religions (eg. Buddhism), scriptures (eg. Gospel of John), and deities (eg. Allah) are capitalized, as are specific mythical creatures such as the Minotaur and Pegasus. Pronouns for figures of veneration are not capitalized (e.g., in Catholicism, when talking about God, pronouns referring to Him are 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 taxonomic rank, all words are capitalized.
 * Common names are not capitalized (grey wolf, apple pie, calculator) unless they include a proper noun (Przewalski's horse, African violet)
 * "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 vs. southern Poland).
 * When it comes to institutions and places, follow their own usage (eg. The Ohio State University insists on having the "the" capitalized.)

End of lesson 9
Any questions? I have included only the very basics; there is much more at Manual of Style. There'll be a test for this lesson—pretty easy as tests go :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking a little longer than usual! I'm completely fine and ready to take the test :D FiendYT 05:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Test
1.) Q- Capitalize the following article titles accordingly:
 * a farewell to arms
 * ipad
 * impact of technology on education
 * A- A Farewell to Arms, iPad, Impact of Technology on Education


 * A Farewell to Arms
 * ✅ iPad
 * Impact of technology on education

2.) Q- Put the following in the correct order according to the Manual of Style. The title of the article is "Peter Laufer"—do not refer to the actual article: (1) Category:American male journalists (2) See also: Karen Dawn (3) Further reading: Dunayer, Joan (2001). Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Ryce Publishing. ISBN 978-0-97064-755-9. (4) Works: No Animals Were Harmed: The Controversial Line Between Entertainment and Abuse (2011). (5) Peter Laufer (6) Notes: Bernd 11-47 (7) Official website (8) Peter Laufer
 * A- 4, 2, 6, 3, 7, 1, 8, 5
 * It should be 4, 2, 6, 7, 8, 1, 5; templates come before categories.

3.) Q- Name everything that's wrong with this if it were an article title:
 * What is the beginning of 🇬🇧 English progressive rock?
 * A- Articles titles can't contain images of any sort. Article titles also can't be a question of any type.
 * Both of your answers are correct, but you still missed some.
 * The grammar of this title is incorrect (United Kingdom English rock is not a thing).
 * It is not a noun phrase.
 * Articles titles cannot contain internal links (eg. progressive rock)

4.) Q- What type of English should you (most likely) use in an article if this is a sample sentence from it?
 * The tusks, at 9 m, were adapted to minimise interference with daily life.
 * A- I should use British English.
 * ✅ Exactly.

5.) Q- Capitalize the following accordingly as if they were in the middle of a sentence. If correct, write "correct":
 * the republic of ireland
 * tailchaser's song
 * king cormac mac airt of ireland
 * a czech president
 * hasidic judaism
 * the book of revelation
 * winter
 * otomops madagascariensis
 * ursidae
 * hooded crow
 * jupiter has at least 67 moons
 * east coast
 * western kazakhstan
 * north
 * university of pennsylvania
 * A- the Republic of Ireland Tailchaser's Song, King Cormac Mac Airt of Ireland, a Czech president, Hasidic Judaism, the Book of Revelation, winter, Otomops Madagascariensis, Ursidae, Hooded Crow, Jupiter has at least 67 moons, East Coast, Western Kazakhstan, north, University of Pennsylvania
 * Correct answers:
 * the Republic of Ireland ✅
 * Tailchaser's Song
 * king Cormac mac Airt of Ireland
 * a Czech president ✅
 * Hasidic Judaism ✅
 * the Book of Revelation ✅
 * winter ✅
 * Otomops Madagascariensis ✅
 * Ursidae ✅
 * hooded crow
 * Jupiter has at least 67 moons ✅
 * East Coast/east coast ✅ Trick question! It can be either "East Coast" or "east coast" depending on the sentence
 * western Kazakhstan
 * north ✅
 * University of Pennsylvania ✅

End of test
Good luck! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to skip questions 2 and 3? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for not telling you until now. Yes I did mean to skip those questions. I still haven't understood all of what the questions was asking me. FiendYT 00:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I didn't make the questions clear enough.
 * Question 2 is asking you to put the different sections of an article into the right order according to the MOS (eg. does the "See also" section come before or after the "External links" section?). Do just your best (and refer to the Manual of Style) in answering this and I can help if you get stuck.
 * Question 3 is asking you to identify the problems with the example article title (hint: there is more than one problem)
 * Do you understand what to do now? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand it now. I'm pretty busy in real life, so I might do many of my tests and lessons a lot slower.. Sorry for the inconvenience ): FiendYT 04:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me; take your time :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! Oh god, I have a feeling I did horrible on this test... I'm not like my usual self some reason. D: FiendYT 02:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand :) I'll give you another chance to answer question 2. Extra Big Hint: there is more than one problem with the example article title.
 * Fixed number three! I added that you can't have questions in an article title... Hope that was correct! Sorry if I'm bugging you with how slow I am! FiendYT 15:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you did great :) Even though you had a hard time with some of the problems, that just means you need to be extra careful and check the Manual of Style when creating and editing articles. Great job overall! The next lesson will be on reviewing articles. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 10: Reviewing articles
One skill editors should know is how to review articles. It may not be something you do all the time, but it's still good to know. Wikipedia assesses its articles on a scale according to how much information they provide and how well the information is presented.

Article assessment/ranking
This assessment scale is largely unofficial, with the majority of assessments made by WikiProjects who claim jurisdiction over the articles. There are, however, two official ratings which are given to those articles which are nominated by editors and reviewed to see if they meet a series of criteria. The full ranking is as follows:

Other types of pages are graded outside this criteria, including:
 * Lists, which are just long lists of topics that all relate to the main theme of the list. Lists don't provide any prose, and any references are there simply to confirm that the topic does meet the criteria for inclusion. Each list must provide a specific criteria for what is considered a member of that list. Usually this is clear in the title, such as in List of current heads of state and government, and only needs a little more background as to how the list should be organized. Other lists don't at first glance seem as exclusive, such as List of people affected by bipolar disorder, and require some strong referencing to merit inclusion.
 * Disambiguation pages: These are designed to help people find the right article. Some topics share names with other topics, leading to confusion. For example, if you were to search for George Washington, you're probably looking for George Washington, but you could also be looking for George Washington the inventor, George Washington the pioneer, George, Washington, or perhaps one of the George Washingtons. That last sentence contains a total of 8 links, all of which lead to a George Washington of some variety, and I certainly could have included more from George Washington (disambiguation).

New pages
Reviewing newly created pages is a rather different matter. Special:NewPages, or, more recently, Special:NewPagesFeed, is a list of new articles that have been created recently. All of these articles need to be checked for their overall content and their suitability to Wikipedia. Some of them are nominated/tagged for deletion, and many of them are tagged as needing fixing up in one way or another (you can also fix the problem as opposed to tagging it). These articles are not ranked, so to speak, but instead pass review by being properly tagged or fixed.

End of lesson 10
Assignment: Now that you've seen the different kinds of articles and how to review them, take a look at 2 or 3 articles using Special:Randompage and tell me what you think they should be graded as. Don't look at the talk pages or what they are already ranked as, just read the article and give it your own assessment. Give a short reasoning of why you have graded it such. If you believe an article is worse than any of these rankings, mark it as a "sub-stub". After you do a couple of these, I want you to review at least 3 or 4 pages at Special:NewPagesFeed. Good luck, and ask if you have any questions! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll add the reviewed articles following this: Lori Kerans - Sub-stub, Shows almost no data on anything else other than a brief summary of being a basketball player; Virgilio Martínez Véliz - Start-class, Has good list of sources and references, although needs more content to those who aren't familiar with the man; Bhopatpura, Simon Pink, N.K.Kurian
 * The article, Simon Pink, that I reviewed, has been deleted. Also quick question, isn't there also a C ranking or was that just an unofficial ranking? FiendYT 05:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry; in summarizing the rankings I forgot to include it. C-ranked articles usually have more content than a start-class article but they still need a lot of work and cleanup. Did you nominate Simon Pink for deletion or did someone else? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't nominate Simon Pink for deletion, I only tagged for more sources and cleanup. :P FiendYT 23:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's OK :) Every time you review a new article, check to see if it meets the criteria for speedy deletion before moving on to the next one. Knowing if an article should be be a speedy delete will get easier if you choose to review more often. Also, try not to place too many tags (especially redundant tags) on a new article; it makes it look cluttered and can make others frustrated. If there are lots of visible problems with an article, a good rule of thumb is to only tag the 2 or 3 major ones. Of course, it's always best if you can fix all or some of the problems yourself. P.S. I'm not mad. :) I just want you to learn the best ways to edit Wikipedia. Extra Assignment: Just so I know that you can review new pages, please review at least 5 more at Special:NewPagesFeed, and list them below. Thanks for persevering! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lori Kerans - ✅ Stub/sub-stub
 * Virgilio Martínez Véliz - ✅ Start-class
 * Bhopatpura - You could have easily fixed the small formatting problems yourself (why not?).
 * James Kurian - An article about a living person without any sources except for images should have been immediately tagged for BLP PROD. Next time, check some of the article's sources before passing it. Also, the page did not need to be renamed like you did; there are no references to support this name change, or any of the info in the article for that matter. Then, after it was tagged for BLP PROD, you moved it to draft space without consulting the author?? This is not protocol, and is not considerate of the article's author. The author had time to improve the article in mainspace, so why did you need to move it to draft space? A better alternative would have been finding sources yourself for the article, or just plain leaving it be for the author to deal with. In my opinion, you should move undo your move and bring the article back to mainspace, allowing the author time to fix it, and if he doesn't, it will be deleted. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am deeply regretful to commit those acts on the article. I have moved the article back to the main space and left a kind edit summary explaining it. I will list the articles down accordingly. Henry Jarzynski, Ministry of Economy and Finance of Panama, Bigeminal pulse. Sick Muse Art Projects
 * Good job--moving on :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal break
You're more than halfway through the course (congrats!), so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian.

1.) Q- Why did you begin editing Wikipedia? Why did you decide to become adopted?
 * A- I first began editing Wikipedia anonymously as a vandal. I usually blanked pages and changed some text to make it seem funny. After I was blocked for a few weeks, I decided to make a Wikipedia account to make the article of my school, Challenger School. I wanted to become adopted since I thought adoption would teach me some new and helpful things about Wikipedia, and it certainly did.

2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
 * A- My username has a long history. I used to play this video game, Adventure Quest Worlds, and my cousin suggested for me to make my username Fiend2, since I was a little evil and devilish. I stuck with the name throughout my entire online history with small changes. FiendYT is the name of my retired Youtube channel also, so I decided to use it for Wikipedia.

3.) Q- What are your major interests? What type of things do you like to do on Wikipedia?
 * A- I like helping new people and welcoming them to the community. I always think you shouldn't punish someone, but teach them the right ways for the most part. Some of my major interests are Japanese media, aviation, military, and politics. I also love fighting vandalism think that I am doing a little bit for Wikipedia.

4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
 * A- Future goals eh? I really don't have many, but a few are: Gain several permissions to be able to fight vandalism and help other editors better, improve articles on Aviation and military, and help people in general. (:

End of lesson
Do have any preference for topic of the next lesson? If not, we'll move on to semi-automatic tools. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I would love to move onto Semi-Automatic tools, since I'm using a few right now. :D FiendYT   ★  23:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 11: Semi-automatic tools
A semi-automatic tool is basically a computer program designed to make certain repetitive tasks easier and less complicated. I know you have at least some experience with tools, so this lesson won't be difficult for you. There's no test: only an assignment: enable the Twinkle and HotCat gadgets (if you haven't already). To do this, go to the "Preferences" at the top of the page, and then the "Gadgets" tab. Just check the boxes to enable them on your account. Twinkle is sixth from the bottom under "Browsing", and HotCat is fourth from the top under "Editing". These two tools are some of the most common on Wikipedia, and are very easy to utilize. Even though you now have these tools, you don't have to use them unless you want to. I only want you to try them out in case you ever feel like using them.

Twinkle
Twinkle is a handy little tool that's been around for awhile. It allows you to easily tag articles, mark them for deletion, and revert vandalism easier, as well as some other useful things. After you enable Twinkle, you should see a tab with the letters "TW" to the left of the search box at the top of any page. Click on that tab and you'll be presented with a variety of options:


 * In article space
 * CSD (Request speedy deletion via WP:CSD)
 * PROD (Propose deletion via WP:PROD)
 * XFD (Nominate for deletion via WP:XFD)
 * RPP (Request page protection)
 * Tag (Add a maintenance tag)
 * Last (See the last revision)
 * Unlink backlinks (This allows you to remove certain kinds of internal links from the text. This is a rarely necessary tool, so I would encourage you not to to use it unless you know what you are doing)


 * When viewing the last revision of a page (the top 4 appear in colored lettering on the page itself)
 * Rollback (meaning revert all the edits by that user on that page) for good faith
 * Rollback general
 * Rollback vandalism
 * Restore a different revision of the page
 * Under the TW tab, there are also multiple options to see other diffs compared to each other


 * User talk
 * ARV (Report a user to administrators)
 * Warn (Warn or notify a user)
 * Wel (Welcome a user)
 * TB (Talkback)

I encourage you to experiment a little bit with these as long as your edits are responsible (see "Responsibility", below)

HotCat
HotCat is a tool that makes adding categories easy. Once you have it enabled, look at the categories at the end of a page. They should now look something like this:

Categories (++): French equestrians (-) (±) | (+)

The double-plus next to categories allows you to add several categories at once. The (-) after French equestrians allows you to remove that category, while the (±) allows you to modify it. The (+) at the end allows you to add one new category. This tool comes in very handy if you work with categories a lot.

Responsibility WARNING
I encourage you to explore with Twinkle and HotCat, but don't forget to be responsible with them. As you already know, you should not tag articles just because it's fun or to annoy people, but to better the encyclopedia. User talk:Sandbox for user warnings allows you to test out warning, welcoming, and talkback. '''You are fully and completely responsible for all of your actions using or regarding semi-automatic tools. Please add your signature here to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:''' FiendYT   ★  01:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

End of lesson 11
Twinkle and HotCat are only a few of the many semi-automatic tools on Wikipedia. Any questions? Having trouble enabling/using these tools? My laptop just died last night :'( so I might have a problem accessing Wikipedia in the coming weeks until I can get a new one. How is having rollback going? Is it useful to you? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just came back from a three day Boy Scout camping, so didn't get a chance to use rollback yet. I also have Twinkle and HotCat and have been using them already. I've downloaded Huggle and STiki. They seem to very useful (: FiendYT   ★  18:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good for you :) I'm glad you've figured out tools and how to use them. We'll tackle dispute resolution next. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 12: Dispute resolution
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very likely to end up in a dispute. This is especially likely to happen if you take to editing in the 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 following through. This lesson will have a test.

Simple Resolution
I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe in your side of the argument, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you should do, though, is attempt to resolve the dispute.

First, assume good faith: remember the person you are in a dispute with is (most likely) 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, and it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to make your point by editwarring (repeatedly reverting someone else's same work) to keep your preferred version there is a chances that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead, follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss rule - one editor makes a bold edit which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor reverts the edit because they disagree. Then, these 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 discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Something you should never do is use personal attacks to try to get your way. Attacks on the character of an editor will only make thing worse. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that. If it continues, report them to admin.

If you think about what you are saying and how the editor you are talking with is likely to respond, you realize 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.

Accusing the other editor of attacks, bad faith, ownership, vandalism, or any number of negative things are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, use the following 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. Third opinion 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 the more formal route of Requests for mediation. The editors here specialize in sorting out debates.

Request for Comment
You can use Request for Comment to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than with a Third Opinion request. Request for comment 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 have to go this far with a dispute. It's the last resort; the community has elected its most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated and serious cases. Have a read of WP:Arbitration Committee if you like, but try not to end up there.

Reporting misconduct
If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards where 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 realize you are flogging a dead horse.

End of lesson 12
So sorry it took me a long time to post this! I've been busy IRL lately. Dispute resolution is a tricky area. Any questions before the test? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am ready for the test. Dispute Resolution is one of my favorite subjects to go on (: FiendYT   ★  15:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Test
1.) Q- Explain, in your own words, each level of dispute resolution:
 * A- The "Assistance" is basically a one on one conversation. An user may request for someone to help them on a small matter, and the person that helps the user will give tips and resolutions, but not actually intervene with the matter. The "Third Opinion" is basically the same thing as "Assistance", except the person helping the user will also join in the argument. The "Mediation" is in which an argument can't be resolved by the users involved. It is basically a deformed version of the "Arbitration Committee", dealing with low key requests rather than high-profile ones. "Request For Comment" is basically the method in which you call a large portion of the community to help resolve the issue. It is basically a super buffed up version of "Third Opinion". The "Arbitration Committee" is basically the Supreme Court of the United States. It deals with the highest severity level of cases. It may issue topic bans and many other types of sanctions.

2.) Q- Editor A adds something that he believes is helping Wikipedia. Editor B disagrees and reverts it, so Editor A re-adds the content only for Editor B to revert again. What should the two editors do instead of this edit warring (repeatedly adding and removing content)?
 * A- The two editors that are edit warring should immediately stop and discuss their reasons for removing the content and adding the content back to the article on the article talk page.
 * ✅ Exactly.

3.) Q- You mark a particular article for deletion. The creator of the article then leaves a message on your talk page, calling you an incompetent, intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How should you react?
 * A- I would react calmly and leave him a kind message saying that personal threats aren't accepted at Wikipedia. If he continues making personal threats, then, I would go to the admin intervention noticeboard to file a report about his personal attack.
 * ✅ All the while making it clear that personal are not acceptable, it might be a good idea to explain your actions (eg. linking to the appropriate policies, ect, ect, ect.) while apologizing for any misconduct on your part, if appropriate.

4.) Q- You find information saying that the island fox is making a comeback and decide put it in the article with a proper citation. Then another editor reverts it as patent nonsense. What should your next step be?
 * A- My next step would be to inform the editor that reverted the content that the content was justified with a proper citation.
 * While your answer is correct in theory, an editor must always be careful with wording and tone, which, used incautiously, can make someone upset. Instead of just informing the editor that you included a proper citation, it is best to use a gentle approach, with less accusatory language. For example: "I'm confused as to why you removed this information." "The content I added was supported by a reliable citation as set out in WP:RS and WP:CS." "Can you clarify why you reverted this edit?" Using soft words such as "clarify" and "confused" can help defuse a lot of tension. If the editor you are appealing to is smart, he or she will recognize this as a chance to clear up some confusion, instead of picking a fight.

5.) Q- When you are in the middle of a dispute with someone, they insult you on the basis of gender and religion. What should you do?
 * A- I will keep going on with a straight face and address the arguments. If they continue making insults on gender and religion, I will file a report about them at the administrative noticeboards.
 * At this point, addressing their "arguments" will do you no good. Sexist and religious insults are to be taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Depending on the situation, it would be best to report them to an admin immediately.

6.) Q- OPINION: Is there any way to make the dispute resolution process easier?
 * A- In my opinion, I don't think there are currently any ways to make the process easier, although I would like to recommend the use of IRC chat lines for arguments as an alternative for talk page posts.
 * ✅ Good to know :)

End of test
Good luck! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the first question. By levels of dispute resolution, are you referring to methods of dispute resolution such as Third Opinion and Request For Comment? FiendYT   ★  01:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm done with the test. I hope I did well! FiendYT   ★  23:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about request for Pending Changes Reviewer rights. In your opinion, do you think I'm ready for those rights? FiendYT  ★  05:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You did pretty well on the test. I think that you are probably ready for pending changes rights, but would you use them? There are a limited amount of protected articles, and an even smaller amount that need editing. With over 1,500 reviewers already, there is not much work to do in that area. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This might seem vague, but I would like to speed up the process even further. I have just been granted Pending Changes Reviewer rights, and will look forward to using them. I would like to begin on the next lesson. (: FiendYT   ★  23:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 13: Copyright
Copyright can be one most important subjects to learn on Wikipedia, because not adhering to it can lead to serious conesquences, including getting banned. We'll be focusing on images in this lesson, but a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text. 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 understanding any, here's a quick reference.

Image copyright on Wikipedia
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 those licenses if you want, but the gist of them is that you agree everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution.

There are basically two types of images on Wikipedia.
 * 1) Free images
 * 2) 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 practice, 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. However, that doesn't mean it can't be used. You can use a non-free image under certain circumstances:
 * 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). However, I couldn't put it on my user page (or even this page) (#9)

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

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

Copyright and text
Let's see how copyright 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 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.

End of lesson 13
I'm happy to see you were granted the Pending Changes permission :) So sorry I haven't been as active lately, but real life has really cut into the time I have to edit. I'll try to better about responding to you :P Questions? There will be a test for this one. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No questions! I rarely upload pictures, and the pictures I uploaded are my own work, so I usually don't worry about copyright. Ready for the test! (Also, one of the articles I created is going to be featured in the "Did you know" section! :D) FiendYT   ★  14:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Test
Here's the test. I'm so proud of you for your DY accomplishment!! Be sure to explain your answers. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC) 1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
 * A- Well, in all technicalities, no. You still need to get internet to use it, and Internet costs money.

2.) Q- List three instances in which you can upload a picture to the Commons.
 * A- You may upload a picture to the Commons for three reasons. 1 - Your Own Work. 2 - Copyright has expired and now in public 3. - The image was release in Free Domain.

3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Can you upload it to Commons?
 * A- You cannot upload it to the commons since it states you must give links and credit. Media on Commons is to be free and editable.
 * ✅ Non-commercial or fair-use content cannot be uploaded to the Commons. See Licensing for more info.

4.) Q- A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
 * A- No. It is featuring copyrighted work by the Beatles.
 * ✅ Right, and the poster would not fall under fair use because it really would not contribute to any article.

5.) Q- Are there any issues with doing a copy-paste move from another website to Wikipedia?
 * A- For most websites, that copy-pasted text would be a copyright issue and will be removed. There are exceptions, such if you copy content from a website that has their content free licensed, like Wikipedia or Wikia.
 * ✅ Even though it is allowed with freely licensed content, as a rule, don't copy-paste.

6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- No, because you can easily take a picture of the Pope if you attend a ceremony.
 * ✅ Exactly.

7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
 * A- You may upload a press image since you cannot obtain that image anywhere else.

8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
 * A- I would nominate the image for deletion.
 * ✅ My bad--I need to make this question more specific. I meant if you found an image that was not yet uploaded to commons which you wanted to use in a article. In this circumstance, you would need to see if the image meets fair use requirements, or simply find a different image.

9.) Q- Go have a snoop around some Wikipedia articles and 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 put a colon : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
 * A- File:Comic Art - Batman by Jim Lee (2002).png File:Iron Man bleeding edge.jpg  File:Green Lantern Rebirth 6.jpg
 * ✅✅ Excellent work :)

End of test
Good luck! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I took a little long with the test! Just to let you know, another of my articles have successfully ran for DYK and has been on the main page. A third article I submitted is currently in the process of being moved to the queue! (: FiendYT   ★  05:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats! You did really well on this lesson :) I'll get the next one up ASAP. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 14: Permissions
In order to keep Wikipedia running efficiently, some users are allowed additional abilities, or permissions, beyond those of basic users. These permissions are used for maintenance of the site, but because of the potentially dangerous nature of these permissions, they are only given to certain trusted users.

The page here shows a table listing the rights of all types of users. Here is a brief summary of the main levels of permission and what they entail:

Unregistered / New Accounts
Unregistered users have the lowest access levels. Because this is a wiki, they can still edit the site, but they are only able to edit pages which have not been protected or semi-protected. They cannot move pages (rename them) and they cannot create new pages that are not in their own userspace or in the Talk: namespace. These same restricted permissions apply to new accounts, those that have not been "autoconfirmed". For security reasons, an account must be at least four days old to make use of the privileges granted to registered users.

Registered accounts
Registered users have normal access levels to the site. They can edit any page that is not fully protected, they can move and create pages, and upload files. Again, users must hold an account for four days in order to use these features.

Rollbackers
Admins and other users who have been granted the "rollbacker" permission are given the ability to revert multiple edits by a single editor at once. This tool is accessible within a user's contributions, page histories, and diff screens, and adds an extra [ rollback ] link to the page. When this link is clicked, the page will be reverted back to the last revision made by a user other than the one being rolled back. Since January 9, 2008, this tool can be granted by administrators to non-administrators. Use of this tool is, as with other permissions, "no big deal," as this permission can be duplicated with tools such as WP:TW which can be freely used. Despite this, the tool should only be used against vandalism, as specified in the rollback policy. This tool can be granted by administrators to non-administrators at WP:PERM.

Account Creators
Those who actively volunteer at Wikipedia account creation have their accounts "flagged" with the account creator permission. This enables them to create more than 6 accounts every 24 hour period which is currently restricted for those who don't possess the sysop (see below) or account creator privileges. This 6 account a day quota was implemented to prevent the problematic use of multiple account creations. Additionally, account creators can override the anti-spoof check enabling them to create accounts that are similar to existing usernames another task that the average user is unable to perform. This tool can be granted by administrators to non-administrators at WP:PERM.

IP block exemption
Occasionally users who are in good standing will be affected by a block that was applied to another user. This is called an autoblock, and is automatically placed by the software to the IP address a blocked user last edited from, and any additional IP addresses they use while blocked. These are intended to prevent the blocked user from evading their blocks, but can affect others on a shared IP. If this happens to a user on a regular basis, or they are caught in a hard rangeblock, or for some exceptional reason need to edit from a blocked proxy, they can be granted an IP block exemptionIP block exempt right if they meet certain conditions outlined at WP:IPBE. This permission is usually requested through an unblock request, and is removed as soon as it no longer becomes necessary. Users with the right may be "checkusered" (see below) occasionally to ensure it is not being abused.

Administrators / Sysops
Administrators have much greater access compared to the average user. When approved to use the sysop tools, they have the ability to delete and restore (undelete) pages. In order to combat vandalism, they have access to a wider range of access tools - Automatic access to the rollbacker, account creator, and IP Block Exempt permissions described above; The ability to grant those permissions to other users; A special page called "unwatchedpages", which shows a list of pages not on anyone's watchlist; the ability to protect and unprotect pages, locking a certain revision in place until someone with the authority to do so edits it (sysops can edit any protected page); the ability to view deleted contributions; and the ability to block a user for a defined or indefinite amount of time. They are also able to make changes to the MediaWiki interface, changing what users see when they edit a page or view special pages. Users obtain a sysop flag by entering and passing the Requests for Adminship process, where registered users decide by consensus if a user can be trusted with the tools. Generally, a minimum of 70% support is required to pass, however the exact amount varies for each request. Alternate names for administrators: sysops (system operator), mop wielders, glorified janitors

Bureaucrats

Bureaucrats have control over the "nuts and bolts" of permissions, hence the crossed wrenches in their logo. They retain the ability to alter a user's permissions, but only when promoting users to admin or bureaucrat status. They are not able to demote users or grant further access levels. They can also alter a bot's access levels and rename accounts. Bureaucrats are selected through a process similar to that of admins, Requests for bureaucratship, although the process is much more rare and requires a significantly higher consensus.

Stewards
Stewards have full access to a user's permissions. They have the ability to grant and revoke any higher access level, including sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, steward, and bot access, on any project in any language. Stewards are elected by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees (with one exception, Chair Emeritus and Steward Jimbo Wales, who was simply appointed) annually or as needed. Stewards will generally carry further access levels on their main project, but the access level of "steward" only grants them the ability to mess around with permissions.

Checkuser
The checkuser tool allows a user to check if an account is a sockpuppet of another, by being able to access which IP address an account has accessed the project from and when. The tool is only to be used when there is a specific need for it - a controversial and disruptive case of sockpuppet abuse. Requests for checkuser is where people may request use of the tool, however the ability to use it is generally granted by invitation only, or in rare cases by the Arbitration Committee. This is a special permission only granted to specific users and is not included with other access levels.

Oversight
The oversight tool allows a user to hide a certain revision from public view - essentially deleting that one specific revision from the page history. This is done for very rare cases, generally pertaining to legal reasons such as private personal information, libelous content, or copyrighted information. This tool is only granted to users with a particular need for the tool, generally current or former members of the Arbitration Committee, as use of the tool requires a very good legal reasoning, as it is essentially an "oversight" of the requirements of the GFDL. This is a special permission only granted to specific users and is not included with other access levels.

These permissions are all critical to the operation of the Wiki, however it should be kept in mind that not having (or having) one of these access levels really is no big deal. The important thing about a wiki is that you are able to edit it as needed, not that you can limit the ability of others to do so. If a higher access level is granted to you, however, you should always remember that it was granted in the spirit of trust, and that you are expected to use the tools only as needed and always fairly.

End of lesson 14
That's that! I thought we might as well do a lesson on permissions with you getting so many recently :) Any questions before we move on to our last couple lessons? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope! All good. You should also add the recently-added extended confirmed permission to this lesson also for future students (: FiendYT   ★  22:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I will. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 15: Page protection
Most of this information is taken from WP:PP.

Protection policy
Even though Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, in some particular circumstances, because of the extreme likelihood of damaged occuring if editing is left open, some pages may need to be subject to technical restrictions on who is permitted to modify them. The placing of such restrictions on pages is called protection.

Protected pages are normally marked with a small padlock symbol in the top corner; different color padlocks represent different protection types. is usually placed on protected pages to display the padlock. Positioning the mouse pointer over the padlock symbol produces an informational tooltip which says "This article is protected." If Pp-protected's reason parameter is specified, the tooltip also says why the page is protected. If the expiry parameter is specified, the tooltip says for what duration the page is protected.

Types/levels of protection
Here are the majority of page protection types. Protection can be indefinite or expire after a specified time period.

Most common
Full protection - Page can only be modified by administrators Semi-protection - Page can only be modified by users who are logged in and whose accounts have been confirmed (any account is automatically confirmed if it is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits)

Other types
Creation protection - Prevents a page (normally a deleted one) from being recreated (this is also known as "salting", like you were talking about) Move protection - Protects a page from renaming/moving Upload protection - Prevents new versions of a file from being uploaded except by administrators (this does not prevent editing the file's description page) Pending-changes protection - Makes edits by unregistered and new contributors invisible to people who are not logged in until the edits are approved by a reviewer/admin (the white lock is for level 1; the orange lock is for level 2. See WP:Protection policy for the differences) Template protection - Page can only be modified by administrators or users in the Template editors group Permanent protection - Page can only be modified by accounts that are associated with these pages or administrators. Admins are unable to remove this protection. (eg. the Main Page and user CSS and JavaScript pages) Arbitration 30/500 protection - This is the new protection you mentioned. Page can only modified by "extendedconfirmed" users that have had a registered account for 30+ days and 500+ edits. Office actions - Page is protected by Wikimedia Foundation staff in response to issues such as copyright or libel

Requesting protection
Protection can only be applied to or removed from pages by Wikipedia's administrators. However, any user may request the protection of a page via Requests for page protection. To do this, you must explain all your reasons for wanting the page protected; persistent vandalism is the most common reason. Make sure you specify the type and length of protection in your request. All the guidelines can be found on the page.

End of lesson 15
And here is my intro lesson on page protection, just so we've covered it. Questions? :)Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope! We're on a roll (: FiendYT   ★  23:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you rather do a lesson on copyediting or on more advanced templates? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I focus more on content creation than technical details, I'd like to do copyediting first please. FiendYT   ★  18:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 16: Copy editing
Copy editing is a skill which you will likely have to use at one time or another on Wikipedia whether you are writing a new article or fixing an old one. I enjoy it, and as you also seem to like editing article content (which, by the way can be spelled as one word or two), I hope you will enjoy this lesson and your assignment. This lesson is mostly taken from the GOCE (Guild of Copy Editors) page.

Guild of Copy Editors
Since you are already part of the Guild of Copy Editors, I don't really have to explain this one to you. Wikiproject Guild of Copy Editors a collaborative effort that focuses on copy editing articles, as well as other minor cleanup jobs. To "copy edit" is to go through and check spelling, grammar, wikilinks, formatting, etc. Basically making an unreadable page readable :)

How to copy edit
The best way to copy edit is to fix all of the spelling, grammar, and basic formatting first. Then you look up the type of the article (eg. biography) in the Manual of Style to see if every heading is in the proper order. For example, if I was copy editing a novel, I would go to Manual of Style/Novels to see what order the headings were supposed to be in.

Organizing your copy editing strategy

 * 1) Start at the lead section and fix any errors you find.
 * 2) In the edit summary, put "Copyediting", "Copyedit", "CE", or something akin to that so that other editors know what you did. Unless you're only doing things that are obvious (e.g. putting periods at the end of sentences, capitalizing a person's name), don't mark the "minor edit" box.
 * 3) Move down to each of the following sections and do the same thing.
 * 4) Change the order of the headings to the order that the Manual of Style suggests, perhaps moving information to different sections as appropriate.
 * 5) When you have finished, remove any tags which refer to problem that you fixed. A "tag" is a notice at the top of the page that something is wrong with the article.

I've found this is the best way to efficiently copy edit, but if you have any other suggestions or methods that you are comfortable with, feel free to use those as well/instead.

Different kinds of English
Sometimes you'll see,  , or   in the lead when you edit. These templates are only visible when you edit; they are invisible to the public. There are other types of English templates such as Irish English or South African English, but first three are the ones you'll come across the most often. In articles containing, use mdy (23 May 2013) dates and British spelling. It's the same thing with, but with Australian spelling (obviously). When you come across, that means use dmy (May 23, 2015) dates and American spelling. If none of these or  or   is present in the article, I have found it is most widely accepted to use dmy dates and American spelling.

A quick reference for these different kinds of English is available at American and British English spelling differences.

End of lesson 16
The Guild of Copy Editors has a list of article copy edit requests. Assignment: Pick an article from the list that you are going to work on, tell me which one you picked, and I'll monitor your copy editing and tell you how you did at the end (hint: Articles going for a GA or FA review are going to expect a higher level of copy editing). Make sure to read all the rules on the request page before beginning. Have fun! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Picked the article Bibhu Mohapatra. A relatively short article since I don't have enough experience to copyedit a large article. Working on it rn! FiendYT   ★  04:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Just so you know, sometimes reFill doesn't format all references correctly (in the instance of a dead link, for example). If this happens, you have to do it manually with using the Internet Archive or WebCite. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seem to be done copyediting the article. Will be listing the article at requests as completed. FiendYT   ★  03:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 17: Templates 102
In this lesson, we're going to learn about how parameters and some of the main ParserFunctions work. Both of these (especially the former) are used when making infoboxes.

Parameters
In that last example, I get a where a number should appear. This is due to the fact that I did not specify a parameter in that template. A named parameter looks like this: | (parameter name goes here)      =  (value goes here) and an unnamed parameter looks like this: | (value goes here) Parameters allow you to change certain aspects of a template. One template you can use to welcome new users, Template:W-basic, has several parameters which can customize its appearance. Most of those parameters are named, meaning that you have to specify what the name of the parameter is when you use it by putting something after the equal sign. If you set the parameter "anon" to "true" in this template:, the template will generate a message directed especially towards anonymous users, rather than just the normal message. The advantage to named parameters like these is that they can be placed in any order, however, they must be spelled exactly right or they will not work. The template also uses an unnamed parameter, a parameter which does not have to be specified when it is put into use. Templates automatically assign a number to unnamed parameters when they are used, starting with "1". sets the unnamed parameter "1" to "message", which is what that parameter is used for in that template. The userbox above can specify the number of states visited with that same unnamed parameter. Unnamed parameters must be in sequential order to work properly.

"Calling" a template
There are two ways to call a template. Transclusion is simply calling a template as I showed you above:. This displays the template where you put the call for it, but leaves the curly bracketed call in place so that it's easy to remove. This also causes the template to update every time the page is loaded, if it has been edited or has a time-sensitive variable. Substitution, or "subst'ing" a template, causes the opposite effect. To substitute a template, add the code "subst:" at the beginning of the call:. When you save the page, the MediaWiki software will replace that call with the template's code. This causes all the content of the template to virtually be copy-pasted to your page. This makes it more difficult to remove, because instead of the simple template call, you've probably got lines of code that are now clogging up your article/page. Depending on how the template it written, it may require subst'ing to work properly, or it may require transclusion. The page at WP:SUBST gives details on what templates should, must, or must not be substituted.

ParserFuntions
"ParserFunctions" are templates built into the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia is based on. Because of that, you can't edit these templates by going to their template page (there isn't one), and they also are called in a unique way.

#if:
The most basic function available is. #if: probably looks fairly strange to you - since when do we start templates with a # sign? And what's with the colon? Actually, the colon and # are what tells us and MediaWiki that we're calling a ParserFunction instead of a normal template. Here's how #if: works: Huh?

#if: works a little differently than most "if... then..." structures work. #if: is set up like this: "If this space has something in it, I print this. If it's blank, I print that." How does this help us? Well, remember how we could set our parameters to have a blank default value? Imagine what would happen if I wrote this code: Now, when I call the template that uses this code, I will do one of two things. I will either enter a parameter or I won't. If I don't, this code will display "Goodbye!" because there is nothing displayed between #if: and the first option; we set our parameter 1 to be blank by default, so there is nothing but blank space for #if: to look at. However, if I do enter a parameter, regardless of what it is, that code will display "Hello!". This is because when #if: looks at what you gave it, there's something between it and the first option. It doesn't care what that something is, it just cares that something exists. But now, here's why we had that short review on parameters: The difference between these two sets of code is minor, but causes the whole thing to bork up. This time, there is no pipe in our parameter, so there is no default value. As a result, when we don't set the parameter in the template, #if: still sees right after its colon. So, regardless of what we do, we're always going to get "Hello!" as a result of this function.

#ifeq:

 * 1) ifeq: is a bit more useful. #ifeq: stands for "If equal" - instead of just checking to see if something exists, #ifeq: checks to see if that something is equal to something you specifically told it to look for. Here's how it works:

In the sample above, I want to see if the user typed "foo" as a parameter to my template. If they did, #ifeq: will see that and print out "Hello!". If they enter anything else, though, or in this case, nothing at all, #ifeq: will compare whatever they enter to "foo", see that they don't match, and print "Goodbye!" instead. ( bar =/= foo; =/= foo ) This code is a bit more "secure" - if you want the template to do something if the user enters "yes" as a parameter, #if: is not what you want to use. If you use #if:, it'll do whatever you told it to do even if the user enters "no". By using #ifeq:, the function will only do this thing if they enter "yes", exactly like that. It won't work even if they enter "YES", because uppercase letters and lowercase letters aren't the same.

But what if you don't want to risk confusing the user? What if you do want "YES" to work? It's pretty pointless to make an #ifeq: for every single different capitalization of "yes". There's two options available to you. One is to use another ParserFunction, which we'll get to shortly, which acts like a super #ifeq:, checking for multiple different parameter values at once. Another, much easier way, is to tell the parameter to use all uppercase or lowercase letters. How? Magic. Observe: You can use these codes (which are examples of some Magic words) on just about anything - including your parameters. Obviously, it won't have much of an effect on, but when your user types in "YES" when your #ifeq: is expecting to find "yes", adding the code  will solve all of your problems.

#switch:
This is the "super #ifeq:" I mentioned earlier. #switch: allows you to check a single line of text for a practically unlimited number of possible results. It works like this: What this template does is this: It takes the value you enter (which is probably a parameter, which is probably forced to be either lower or upper case for the same reason it would be in #ifeq:) and moves down the list, comparing it to each possible value in turn. As soon as it matches something, it stops, and looks for the next equals sign. It then prints whatever you have between that equals sign and the next pipe. Let's look at an example, based on the above format: If I enter "foo", #switch: replies with "bar". Likewise, "ice" gets "cream" as a response, and "burnt" gets "toast". But "french" also gets "toast". This is because "french" doesn't have anything set specifically for it - there's no equals sign after "french". Because of this, #switch: is going to keep looking for the next equals sign, which is after "burnt". This makes sense for me, because I want that to happen. "burnt toast" and "french toast" both make sense. However, I do have to be careful about what order I put things in; this code may look similar, but will cause "french" to come out with a different result: Now, entering "french" will return "cream", because "ice = cream" is the next value in line for #switch: to find. For both of these, anything not listed in the ParserFunction will not return anything - nothing will be printed, because there is no default value. For #switch: to print something out regardless of what I type in, I would need to specify "#default = " at the very end of the template. There's really no technical reason why #default has to be at the end, but it just makes it easier for other users.

End of lesson 17
I know this might be a lot to absorb and understand, but best of luck getting it to stick :) Any questions? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh god. I'm going to have to refer to this lesson in the future for any Wiki syntax help... I think I'll be okay though (: FiendYT   ★  00:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a lot. Unless you work with creating templates, most of this stuff isn't what you would use all the time. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 18: Policies, guidelines, and essays
This lesson has been mostly ripped from Brambleberry of RiverClan's adoption course. It will have a test.

Policies
A policy is a page describing a topic whose views have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that editors should normally follow. Examples of policies are WP:NOT, describing things that Wikipedia is not and therefore should not lead to pages of, and WP:Verifiability, saying what counts as a reliable source. These are commonly described as being "rules". However, there are usually exceptions to these rules.

Guidelines
A guideline is a page describing a best practice as supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines to the best of their abilities, although exceptions probably apply and everything should be treated with common sense. Examples of guidelines are WP:Assume good faith, which tells you to always assume that editors are working for the good of Wikipedia, and WP:Citing sources, which outlines the best way to cite sources on Wikipedia.

Essays
An essay is a page describing the opinion of an editor or group of editors. Essays are not rules or even guidelines to follow, and they do not represent the entire community's view. They are, however, worthy of consideration when you are editing. Examples of essays are WP:Existence ≠ Notability, which says that just because something exists doesn't mean that it deserves a Wikipedia page, and WP:Just drop it, which says that if things get heated, you shouldn't continue arguing.

Misconceptions

 * Breaking policies gets you blocked.
 * Sometimes people make mistakes from not reading polices carefully. In addition, violating some guidelines and even some essays can get you blocked or banned. Some policies, such as WP:Verifiability is a policy that gets broken every day by thousands of users without them getting blocked.


 * Policies are brief and to the point.
 * What about WP:NOT? That weighs in at about 53 KB.


 * Policies tell you what you must do, and guidelines tell you what you should do.
 * There are a number of exceptions to policies, and many guidelines tell you exactly what to do, such as WP:ELNEVER.


 * Policies are prescriptive while other guidelines are descriptive.
 * Prescriptive, in this case, is telling you what editors should do, and rarely what the community actually does. Most policies rose out of the common practice of good Wikipedians, which would make them descriptive.


 * Policies are supported by a higher degree of consensus than guidelines.
 * While policies are watched by more editors, and therefore it's more likely to be noticed if there's a change, there is no guarantee that they better reflect the community's views. In fact, if every edit is scrutinized and usually reverted, changing views may not be recognized, and policies may no longer reflect the views of the community.


 * A page is a policy because everyone reads it.
 * WP:Clean start, WP:Revision deletion, WP:Reusing Wikipedia content, WP:Open proxies. Ring a bell? These are all policies. Some essays, on the other hand, are viewed thousands of times a day. How much someone reads something is not a guarantee of how they will be viewed.


 * Policy > guideline > essay
 * Editors must follow the most relevant advice. For example, WP:Verifiability, a policy, allows low-quality, self-published blogs as sources, WP:Identifying reliable sources, a guideline, says that's not such a good idea.

Ignore all rules
The fifth pillar of Wikipedia is "Ignore all rules". It basically says that you should ignore a rule that keeps you from improving the encyclopedia. Some people try to apply it in bad situations, and it rarely works to their favor. There's an essay about it called What "Ignore all rules" means. It basically says that if rules keep you from wanting to enjoy participating in the wiki, ignore them and go about your business. Everyone has their own interpretation of this pillar, and that's how it should be.

End of lesson 18
Questions? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ready for the test! So many vandals abuse "Ignore all rules" to the point where it isn't even funny ): FiendYT   ★  00:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is true. In reality, "ignore all rules" means "ignore all rules in a way that respects the work of others". Vandals just don't understand how much work it takes just to keep a freely editable encyclopedia going :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Test
1.) Q- Explain, in your own words, the difference between a policy, guideline, and essay.
 * A- A policy is basically an official guideline set forth by a wide agreement with the guideline. A guideline is a user-made guidance page designed to help users, and is generally approved by the community. An essay is a user-made opinion/guidance page designed to inform users about a group or single editor's opinion on subjects. They do not need to have favorable support from the community, and can only be a minority.

2.) Q- Can policies change? If you wanted to change a policy, what would you change?
 * A- Policies can change. Although this isn't really a change in the policy, I would add a note in Ownership of content stating that exceptions to the rule can be CSD criteria when Author requests deletion and no one has substantially edited the article besides the author.

3.) Q- Which policy do you think is the most relevant in your current work on Wikipedia?
 * A- Several policies are relevant in my current work on Wikipedia. These include WP:CSD, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV.

4.) Q- Nobody cares is a popular essay. Do you agree with it? Why or why not?
 * A- I agree with it because things that you might strongly care about might not spark any interest in other people.

5.) Q- What does "Ignore all rules" mean to you specifically?
 * A- "Ignore all rules" to me, means to not follow any rule that disables you from contributing to the Wikipedia, while using common sense.

End of test
It's a really easy quiz this time :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done with the quiz. I'm always interested in the framework of Wikipedia. FiendYT   ★  05:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What's after this lesson may I inquire? FiendYT   ★  03:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was planning on a final lesson on Wikiprojects and then proceeding to your graduation ;) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure! Let's do that lesson on WikiProjects. FiendYT  ★  02:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try and get it up tomorrow. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Lesson 19: WikiProjects
WikiProjects are best described as groups of individuals collaborating to improve every article that falls under a particular topic. There are many of these across Wikipedia, relating to many topics.

Joining
I noticed you are already a member of quite a few Wikiprojects already, so you know that you can join a one simply by adding yourself to the member list. It's good to add a userbox that says you have joined that WikiProject as well. After you join, the WikiProject has a list of things you can do to help out in that area, as well as sometimes organized projects to participate in. Just so you know, even if you are a member of a specific Wikiproject, you don't have to do work relating to that project all the time, but only occasionally. If you decide that you don't wnat to work in that area anymore, you should promptly remove yourself from the list of members. Also, if you ever decide to retire from Wikipedia, you should remove yourself from all Wikiproject member lists out of politeness to others.

What WikiProjects should I join?
Here some I thought you might be interested in:


 * Welcoming committee
 * Department of Fun
 * Birthday Committee
 * WikiProject Video games
 * WikiProject Military history

A list of all the WikiProjects is at WikiProject Council/Directory.

End of lesson 19
So, look around, and join some more Wikiprojects! Nice navbar, by the way ;) You will have final test before graduating. Start worrying *cough* I mean, studying, of course. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've went and joined some of the WikiProjects you suggested. Ready for the ultimate final test! FiendYT   ★  23:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good for you! It might take me a day or two to get the final test up as I am not feeling well, so have patience :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's taking me so long; I just need a few more days to finish the test. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fine Stasia! Take your time. (: FiendYT   ★  03:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Final Exam
Here you are! I'm so sorry it took me so long to post this :P I've had lack of Wikimotivation the past couple weeks, along with the complications of moving and starting a new job. Still. That was a really long time to keep you waiting. :) This exam will help show me that you are ready to take on Wikipedia by all yourself. While some adopters like to be more secretive about the final, I prefer to give it to you just like all the other tests you had so far. In the real world of Wikipedia, you have the opportunity to look things up, so I think it's best that you have the opportunity to do that here as well. The best of luck! NO LOOKING AT OTHER ADOPTION PAGES. I can tell if you cheat. *cue evil teacher laugh*

Exam
1.) Q- Why must one assume good faith whenever possible?
 * A- You must always assume good faith because anyone might have good intentions for the Wikipedia but just cannot express it with their current knowledge or had just made a mistake.
 * ✅ Exactly.

2.) Q- Say your girlfriend runs a Blogger blog dedicated to makeup tutorials. That's pretty much all that comes up in Google and Bing searches for her except for a short video of her on YouTube doing the cinnamon challenge. Name everything that would be wrong with writing an article about her on Wikipedia.
 * A- She is clearly not notable enough. Just having a blogger blob doesn't make yourself notable. A video from Youtube also does not make you notable. She wouldn't have enough information to even make a decent article about her.
 * Correct, but the question says to name everything wrong with writing this article. You also should take in consideration that she is your girlfriend; you would be violating WP:COI and probably writing with a bias.

3.) Q- The newest movie of the Bourne series is in theaters, and you find a review of it in The New York Times. You add it as a source to the Wikipedia article, and someone reverts your edit saying "NEW YORK TIMES IS RUN BY COMMUNISTS WHO SELL CRAP PROPAGANDA TO THE MASSES!!!" What should you do?
 * A- I would revert the edit that reverted my edit, stating that the NYT is a well-credited source that would be more than reliable for reviews. If he continues to do, I shall calmly confront him on his talk page and begin a discussion with him about why he was reverting my edits and other things pertaining to it.
 * ✅ Often times angry editors like this are only looking to cause trouble. After your initial contact with him, you may have to bring other editors into the dispute on the article's talk page to get things settled.

4.) Q- Name 3 things you should never put in signatures.
 * A- You should never put images, external links, and big text fonts in your signatures.

5.) Q- Would Stephen Sondheim's books Finishing the Hat and Look, I Made a Hat be the best authority on hatmaking?
 * A- These books would not be the best authority on hat making because these books are musicals, which obviously aren't focusing explicitly on hatmaking.

6.) Q- MasashiKishimoto@ is a new Twitter account claiming to be the author of Manga series Naruto. He declares in a recent tweet that a new Naruto movie will be released in early 2017. You can't find anything about this anywhere else. Should you include it in either the Masashi Kishimoto or Naruto articles?
 * A- I would not include this in any of the articles relating to Naruto because this Twitter account isn't verifiable and has never been mentioned in any other websites.
 * ✅ It is not uncommon to see fake social media accounts claiming to be a famous person, so you must check everything carefully, verifying information with other sources.

7.) Q- An article states that the average human being has five fingers on each hand. Does this information need to be supported by a source? Why or why not?
 * A- It does not need to be supported by a source because this is common knowledge and is obvious enough that you do not need a source to support it.

8.) Q- You revert something, thinking it's vandalism, but later receive an irate reply on your talk page: "That's not vandalism! This information you reverted is covered in many research articles! How dare you accuse me of (insert type of vandalism here, as well as more complaints)!" You check, and sure enough, he's right. What do you do?
 * A- I would post a comment replying to the irate message on my talk page, giving my apologies, while also warning that you should always Assume Good Faith and point him towards the AGF article.
 * ✅ Be careful to keep frustrated tones out of your responses to messages like this; this will only aggravate the other editor. Kindness and graciousness always go far in mollifying others.

9.) Q- What warning template should you use for these (assuming they are all on level 1 warnings)?
 * Placing inappropriate jokes about older women on the Boston Terrier article
 * Replacing an insightful talk page comment with "Poppycock! Poppycock I say!"
 * Removing multiple issues from an article
 * A-



10.) Q- You place a CSD tag on a recently created article, and article's author then gives you a handful of vulgar insults on your talk page. What should your next step be?
 * A- I would immediately report him to the Administrator's noticeboard.
 * You should first place the appropriate warning template on the author's talkpage, (perhaps ), and revert his edits on your talkpage. If this user continues in attacking you, only then should you report their actions to ANB.

11.) Q- A certain editor appears to be following you and reverting everything you post as "patent nonsense". How should you confront her?
 * A- I would kindly leave a message on her talk page, stating the reasons why you shouldn't go reverting other editor's edits without probable cause, and asking her the reasons for doing so. If she continues to do so, I would give her several warnings before filing a report on her.
 * ✅ Precisely.

12.) Q- What CSD would this article fall under: "If you live in the Greater Chicagoland area, come on down to BOB'S CANDLEWICK OUTLET! Our prices are so outrageous, we're almost giving this stuff away! Tell all your friends about Bob's candlewicks!"
 * A- This article would fall under G11.

13.) Q- Someone copied everything from Douglas MacArthur and pasted it to the page Awesome American general dude. What CSD would this page fall under?
 * A- This article would fall under A10.

14.) Q- You're working with an new editor to cleanup a page they created. During the course of your discussions, you realize that the content of the article is just an exact copy of a textbook the other editor is reading off of. What should you do?
 * A- I would sincerely and kindly inform the editor that plagiarism is not allowed on Wikipedia, and tell him to use his own words instead of using others.
 * Assuming this article is in mainspace, your first priority is delete all the copyrighted content it contains. After this, you would be completely right in discussing plagiarism and how to re-write the article ect. with the new editor.

15.) Q- Will breaking a policy always result in an indefinite block?
 * A- It will not always result in an indefinite block. It might result in a temporary blocks, or even just a few warnings, and even if you do get indefinite blocked, you may appeal for an unblock if you promise to not do it again and such.

16.) Q- What do you think you got out of my adoption course? Is there anything that you think I should change?
 * A- This adoption course has taught me everything from A to Z. Since starting this adoption course, I have made great strides in Wikipedia, learning new things and even achieving new user rights. I have to thank for all of that to this adoption course. Honestly, I can't thank you enough Stasia. I don't think you should particularly change anything, but I'd like to suggest a new idea for this course. Since you are away for some periods of time from Wikipedia (from what I've seen) and just busy in general, I'd like to propose an idea of "assistant adopters-mentors". This would mean the graduates from your adoption course be assistant mentors with you and help you out with your busy schedule. Further details could be discussed later.
 * ✅ I'm glad to hear I've helped you out! I'm also glad for your suggestions; perhaps we can work something out :)

End of final exam
Completed the test and left my suggestions! Sorry if it took a long time. (: FiendYT   ★  03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your graduation! You are now fully qualified to run your own adoption school if you wish. Keep working on your grammar and make sure to think your ideas carefully through before acting on them, but I'm sure you will get along fine in the Wiki world on your own :) Of course, if you ever need anything or have any questions, I'll be right here to help you out. Thanks for being a lot of fun and I wish you the best in all your endeavors! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I will do my beset to meet your expectations. I hope we will still keep in contact :) FiendYT   ★  23:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)