User:Missionedit/Adoption/Hisashiyarouin

A few questions to start off with:

1) Would you prefer to be called Hisashiyarouin, Yarouin, or something else? 2) What is your goal in contributing 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 example, like the flower on my userpage, or the one at Molly's Mind's classroom. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for adopting! Here are my answers:
 * 1) Hisashi, which is the first name of the pseudonym. FYI I was trying to sound somewhat encyclopedic when I use the last name (Yarouin) in the user page.
 * 2) At first I was really just interested in writing up for some video games I play and like. But after seeing more of WP I feel there is more to this itself, so now I shift more towards simply bettering the encyclopedia.
 * 3) Hong Kong Time or UTC+8.
 * 4) Learn what simply running about WP cannot teach, and also straighten up what I learn from simply running about WP. I am almost certain I have did something wrong somewhere
 * 5) Could I use this from the Commons? I like wolves enough to put it in my psuedonym, that's for sure.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 14:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, my pleasure! I prefer to be called Anastasia or Stasia. The picture is great-- good choice. So, would you like do your first lesson the basics, or is there something that you want to cover first? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Anastasia: Although I say I have known past the very basics, a review would be good, in case I got something wrong and not realize until it's too late.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 08:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, first lesson on WikiMarkup, coming up! You probably already know most of this, but we might as well touch on it to start. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Lesson 1: Wiki markup
Since you like collapse tables, I decided that I'll put all the lessons in some to keep it more organized :) If you can think of another way you'd like this page set up, just let me know, or do it yourself if you are able. This lesson mostly is taken from WP:MARKUP, so you can also take a look there if you need some more help.

Headings
If you edit this page, you can see how the "Lesson 1" heading above has two equal signs to either side of it, like this:. This subheading, titled "Headings", is a little smaller and has three equal signs. Incidentally, enclosing text between equal signs turns the text into a section heading. You can use anywhere from one to four equal signs on both sides for differently sized headings, however, level one headings (with only 1 equal sign on each side) are not permitted in articles. If a page has more than three headings of any kind, a table of contents like the one above is automatically generated.

Line breaks
Using the Enter/Return key once changes nothing visibly on saved page, however, this can help the page code look more organized. Entering twice creates a new paragraph. You can use  or   to create a new line without a new paragraph.

Indenting
Instead of using the tab key or spacebar to indent on Wikipedia, colons are utilized. I see that you've already figured out how to use this in responding to posts on talk pages, so no need to go on about that :)

Lists
There are two main kinds of lists: bullet points and numbered. Numbered lists are generally for anything ranking or order-related, and everything else (such as bibliographies or award lists) should be bulleted lists. You use an asterisk to produce a bullet character and a pound sign  to produce a numbers for a numbered list. Like with colons, adding more asterisks or pound signs will cause indentation.

Text formatting (italics and bold text)
Adding two singular apostrophes to both sides of a phrase will make the text within italic. Adding three single apostrophes to each side will make the text bold. Adding five apostrophes to both sides will make the text both bold and italic. Wikipedia uses italics in lieu of underlines, so underlining almost never needed. I will stress that you use single apostrophes, because some people use quotation marks thinking it will create italic text, but it doesn't. For the most part, you won't need to use other text formatting in article space besides bold and italics.

Enclosing text between  and   makes the text big. HTML tags such as,  ,   and   are all allowed in Wiki Markup. However, I believe some HTML tags are not supposed to be used. If you want be sure, check out Help:HTML in wikitext just in case.

Links
To link to a page inside Wikipedia's domain name, simply put two brackets to either side. For instance, if I wanted to link to the Wikipedia article about Tetris, I would put, and clicking on that link would bring me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris. These shortened links are called internal links. Of course, sometimes the page that you want to make a link to isn't named in a way that would make sense in the text. For example, this sentence is not grammatically correct: "Easter egg (media) are hidden messages or jokes left in games by developers that are not part of the main game." One solution to this is to place the page name on the right, a pipe int the middle, and how you want the link to appear on the left:. This will make the sentence look like this: "Easter eggs are hidden messages or jokes left in games by developers that are not part of the main game."

This will work even if the text on the right side is unrelated to the link, for instance, if I wanted to make the word "apple" link to the "Pumpkin" article, the code would appear as follows:. It is important to remember that the text on the left of the pipe is the title of the linked page and that the text right is how it appears when saved.

There are also external links, which link to pages outside Wikipedia. To do that, you place only one bracket on each side of the URL. Then you put a space and type in what you want it to be called. For example, linking to the official Taiko no Tatsujin website homepage would mean posting  in the "External links" section on the Taiko no Tatsujin Wikipedia article. This would produce this: Official website. It is important to note that the External links section is the only place that you should put external links on Wikipedia. All other links should be internal.

End of Lesson 1
Did I explain everything in a way that is understandable? Any questions before we move on? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is great, and thanks for tailor-making some of those examples. No questions on this.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 01:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Great--next lesson on the five pillars coming up soon. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lesson 2: 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.

Any questions? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * None about the text, but where does notability come in? I am under the impression that it is also quite important in WP.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 23:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Notability falls under the first pillar, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. What Wikipedia is not is a summary of this pillar, and, in a way, lists the reasons articles not "notable" enough for Wikipedia. For instance, if an article is deemed not notable because all of it's sources are supported/written by the subject of the article, this is because Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If an article is deemed not notable because it only contains original research, that is because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia, nothing else. Do understand what I mean? This is kind of an abstract topic, as you must look at the pillar's meaning inversely. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the easiest sense to make, but I think I am getting how it's coming together. Like notability is some concrete criteria to interpret the first pillar better?  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 04:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the first pillar provides the criteria for notability. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, material that is promotional, non-verifiable, or original research has no place in it. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh OK, I see now. As I said this is easily over my head, but thanks for straightening things out for me.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 02:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You're doing well in picking this up quickly :) Next lesson on reliable sources coming up in the next few days, but it may take longer because of the thanksgiving holiday this weekend. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lesson 3: Reliable sources
For more information on this topic see Reliable sources.

Now, you may know a little about this already, and if you do then it will be a breeze for you. There will be test after this lesson just to make sure you understand it. The test shouldn't be hard for you. 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.

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 3
Questions before the test? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No questions here.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 10:32, 10 December 2014 (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- No. The friend is not a reliable source for that event.


 * ✅ If you looked this fact up and found some trusted sources other than your friend which support it, you would be more than welcome to add it to Wikipedia. But otherwise, no.

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 it would be original synthesis.


 * ✅ Yup, even if a source is reliable that does not mean you can use it to promote your own opinion in an article.

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 would say no because it's not relevant, and also sounds quite shaky without other reliable sources supporting.


 * ✅ Spot on :)

4.) Q- Would you consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft? Why or why not?
 * A- Generally no, except in parts that also concern Apple (say lawsuits between them).


 * Because Microsoft is a competitor of Apple, Apple is not considered a reliable source on that topic. Even if there was an article concerning both Apple and Microsoft published by Apple, it would still be considered unreliable. Competitors are known to put their opponents down and try to make themselves look good. Thus, there is a good chance the article is biased. Twisting the facts, you might call it.

5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page as a reliable source? Why or why not?
 * A- Yes, to cite the company's own statements.


 * Using Twitter as a reliable source is an exception, but it is possible under a few conditions:
 * Another reliable source which presents the same information must not exist
 * They must be claims only about the company, and not a third party
 * The article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * There are few other conditions, see WP:TWITTER for them all. Basically, only use Twitter for a source if you have to.

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- No. A "forum official's" post on the forum doesn't necessarily stand as part of the Chicago Tribune (a RS).


 * ✅ Exactly.

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- Yes, to cite the company's own take on the history.


 * ✅ This information may not be available anywhere anywhere else, so it can be used (along with other sources) to support an article.

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- I would say we don't need to, as it would be good enough common knowledge to form the consensus?


 * ✅ The editor is probably color blind, Hisashiyarouin, so you may want to point him to a source about color blindness or about why the sky is blue. But you don't need to put a source in the article. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

End of test
If you are confused by a question, feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything in particular you would like to cover, Hisashi, tell me and we can do it in the next lesson. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And my answers! Currently I don't have any specific topics in mind, so I'll leave the choice to you.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 03:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Lesson 4: Copyright
Copyright is one most important lessons to learn, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. We'll be focusing on images, but a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.

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

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 is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution.

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. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations
 * If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
 * If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
 * If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)
 * There must be no free equivalent
 * We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
 * Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
 * Must have been published elsewhere first
 * Meets our general standards for content
 * Meets our specific standards for that area
 * Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
 * Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
 * Can only be used in article space
 * The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag

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

Get it? Well here are a few more examples.
 * I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so 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 4
Thanks for being patient and waiting for the lesson :) Now is a great time to ask about any tricky situations. Copyright is definitely not my forte, but I'll do my best to answer. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a bit of copyright a few semesters back so I generally get the gist. Commons is new ground for me, but it is okay as I don't really see myself working extensively with images. Thanks again.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 09:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also a test for this one, because it's so important. I'll get that up ASAP. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Test
Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one, but be sure to explain your answers. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Answers added.  野狼院 ひさし  Hisashi Yarouin 07:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
 * A- Not completely. One cannot contribute malicious content like hoaxes and slander. But for most normal instances Wikipedia is free.
 * ✅ Fair enough :)

2.) Q- List three instances in which you can upload a picture to the Commons.
 * A-


 * A photograph I took of natural landscape.
 * A photograph I took of a very old art already in public domain.
 * A useful flowchart completely drawn by myself.
 * ✅ Good. Next time make sure to explain your answers more.

3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Can you upload it to Commons?
 * A- No. Commercial use must be allowed as part of being under a free license. (Referred to Commons:Licensing)
 * ✅ Nice touch linking to the policy.

4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
 * A- No. The collage design (the 08 shape) does not add to the article, because a live photo of the team together would also serve the purpose of identifying the team (and also as free equivalent).
 * ✅ This collage doesn't seem to be all that useful for Wikipedia's purposes, and it no doubt contains copyrighted team images. Violates more than one of the criteria of the non-free content policy.

5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
 * A- A work that uses or is modified from another copyrighted work.
 * ✅ Pretty much sums it up :)

6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
 * A- No. One can go to a public event which he attends and take a picture of him there, making for a free equivalent.
 * ✅ Yup.

7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
 * A- Yes under fair use, as there cannot be a free equivalent of him alive after he is executed.
 * ✅ There may be a few instances in which this would break policy. For instance, maybe there is a free equivalent taken before he is executed. But in general uploading this photo would be acceptable.

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- Not use it on Wikipedia and find a free equivalent instead. (Though I have seen others link something like this in External Links.)
 * ✅ It's usually not a good idea to include links to images in the External links section. As a rule, only include external links in an article which would be included in a featured article (on the main page).

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!)
 * Image: File:Youkai_Watch.jpg
 * ✅ Great job :)


 * You did a wonderful job on this test! A++ Keep up the great work :) We can do a lesson on vandalism next if you have no objections. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 5: Vandalism
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 ( ~ ) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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) 02:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice job finding some examples. The first one (to Ainsley Harriott) is your typical stupid edit, made by some bored person looking for fun. The second one (Web films) was a really weird piece of work, I'm not even sure what that was :) The third (Parumala Church) is a biased soapbox-type edit, and it's the only one which hasn't been reverted yet, as of now. To revert this edit, go to the diff you found, and use the green  button to revert the edit, because the editor looks new to Wikipedia. Then, use an appropriate warning template on the editor's talk page from WP:User warning templates. Be careful to use the right one! You also may want to check the user's previous edits for more vandalism as well. Revert any vandalism that you find, always using an appropriate warning template. You can refer to to the "Warning vandals" section above if you need to, and feel free to ask questions. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Done! I am using the template for the soapbox/NPOV issue. The only other edit was to another religion-related article which was already reverted.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 02:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Very good! And I see you've taken to some other vandalism reverting as well :) I'm glad to see you've got the hang of things. There's no test for this lesson, so we can move on to deletion next if you have no questions, as I see you like to work in that area. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! I've picked up some bits from participating here and there, but it's good to formally review and see what I missed.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 06:43, 2 February 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 Hisashiyarouin 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 f 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''. 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? I hope you found this lesson useful. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have none. Haven't gone into PROD but it's a great introduction.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 06:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, PROD is very interesting, but I must say it is rarely used. It is mostly used for deleting biographies of living people that have no sources, such as Dorsa Giyahi‎. I'll get the test up soon. Sorry I take so long to post, I'm just busy in real life :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you would use PROD.
 * A- The article is a biography for a living person that has no sources.
 * ✅ This is by far the most common scenario.

2.) Q- You tag an article for CSD under A7. The creator then blanks the page. What should you do?
 * A- Criteria for speedy deletion #7 indicates a G7 author request will not be granted here. So revert to pre-blanked version?
 * I see your point--I never thought about it that way before. It depends on why the creator blanked the page. Despite non-criteron #7, most editors would just tag it with G7 without asking. Reverting to the pre-blanked page is an extra hassle (and may result in an edit war) considering the page will just be deleted anyway. So, I suppose you may do either, depending on the situation.

3.) Q- Why should you wait before tagging an article for A1 or A3?
 * A- The author may still be in progress of working on the article and adding info to counter the tag.
 * ✅ Adding tags prematurely can also scare away potential editors.

4.) Q- You find an article which says: Joe Garrison 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- In most parts A7 also seems reasonable because almost that description (nice/awesome/beer and hot dog/has cool fiancee) can apply to a lot of people. Maybe also G11 because it seems to be solely promoting people to go to Garrison's place.
 * ✅ Either one would work.

5.) Q- You find an article which says: ajdflajsdlfjalghaiefjalsfj
 * A- G1 and A1. Complete gibberish.
 * G1 is sufficient in this case.

6.) Q- You find an article which says: Mike Smith 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- None. That Smith was in two notable musical groups can be a claim to importance to deny A7. It would need more sources to discuss him explicitly but that is for PROD/AfD.

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 though of G3 at first, but that it did not mention exactly where the bomb shelter/planetarium/memorial is or which blitz it is makes A1 a better candidate.
 * ✅ A1 it is.

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- Articles for deletion/UNICE global brain project. Almost exclusively primary sources and problems of synthesis outside of that (when older sources before 2014 are used for a claimed 2015-born project). The bundled "project pages" are violating Wikipedia not being a web host.
 * ✅ Good job :)

End of test
I saw that you very nicely reverted that nasty vandalism to your talk page. Keep up the good work! I know many an experienced editor who do not deal as calmly as you did with personal attacks :) Good luck with the test, and feel free to refer to the lesson. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Although most part is that I didn't know too much what connotations "p****" has, English being my second language and all, so it didn't stick too much. My answers are as above.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 08:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonderful job! Not many people would have picked up on some of the things you did :) Next lesson on deletion process/consensus coming up soon as possible, which may be awhile. :P ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 7: Consensus and "voting"
Since Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, when we have a disagreement on something, we go by consensus. You can add your opinion to the debate by "voting". However, this type of voting is not like holding an election or a poll. It is more like a debate, with each comment contributing a new idea to keep the consensus discussion going. (Interesting fact: WP:Articles for Deletion used to be called Votes for Deletion, but the name was later changed so that a better consensus could be reached.)

"Voting"
As I am sure you 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:


 * 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. An alternative to this is Incubate, which puts it in an WP:Article incubator.
 * 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:


 * 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 any RfAs or RfBs that they have around. You can vote in AfDs at Articles for deletion. You can vote for RfAs or RfBs at Requests for adminship. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Among other participation, I "voted" keep at Articles for deletion/Dong Zhao (Kuomintang) and Articles for deletion/Wang Zuanxu who are contemporary Chinese generals, with only one-liners in ENWP but would be easily notable if content and cited history books are ported in from ZHWP. Articles for deletion/ToriOS had my (tentative) delete with only one foreign language independent source I can find (seems reliable and assumed so there) and otherwise just cited sources that are unreliable, unrelated or not mentioning the subject at all. Skipping the RfA/B part as there are none, as instructed. Though there is this very badly formed "RfA" Requests for adminship/Roosterteeth11 just added today.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 08:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great job! A lesson on templates will be next if there are no objections. Sorry it took me so long to respond, I didn't see yours until just now. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 8: Templates
This lesson is mostly taken from User:Hersfold/Adopt/Templates.

Template basics
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 curly brackets. Whenever you call a template, the content of 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: 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.

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.

End of lesson 8
These are only the basics of templates. We can cover more advanced stuff later if you want to. Any questions? Please tell me if you had any problems understanding, and we can try to work them out together. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine. Having got a little experience in programming, it works like passing functions/procedures really. And the template page has good explanation to check back for so there is no big problem. Not sure if the last example is working though because the time is not stuck here as I see it.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 11:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the last example because I realized I doesn't work with how I have the page set up. Thanks for alerting me to that problem :) Template "lingo" can be really hard to understand, even for me after using it for a few years. There's no test for this one, so we can move on to a lesson on the Manual of Style. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 9: Manual of Style
The Manual of Style is the style guide for all Wikipedia articles. Sometimes adopters neglect to touch 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—don't worry, it won't be too hard :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you ready for the test? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I am.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 14:11, 14 May 2015 (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

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 8 1 5

3.) Q- Name everything that's wrong with this if it were an article title:
 * What is the beginning of 🇬🇧 English progressive rock?
 * A- Title should not be a question (should b noun or noun phrase); title should not have images or links

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- British English, from the use of metr over feet and the -ise spelling.
 * ✅ The English dialect can only be guessed, because we are not reading the sentence in the context of the whole article (it could possibly be Irish or Scottish English); but your guess is the most likely.

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 (correct)
 * Otomops madagascariensis
 * ursidae (correct)
 * hooded crow (correct)
 * Jupiter has at least 67 moons
 * East Coast
 * western Kazakhstan
 * north (correct)
 * University of Pennsylvania


 * Here are the ones you got wrong:
 * king Cormac Mac Airt of Ireland
 * Ursidae

End of test
Here you go. Feel free to refer to the lesson and WP:MOS during the test. Good luck! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Qs 1-4 first.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 11:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * and Q5.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 12:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Good job over all! Next lesson will be on dispute resolution. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 10: 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, try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right; 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 10
This is a tricky area. Any questions before the test? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see as of now. Let's see the test!  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 08:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Test
1.) Q- Explain, in your own words, each level of dispute resolution:
 * A- Editor assistance: Ask for advice from another editor
 * Third opinion: Ask a third editor to give opinion
 * Mediation: Formally settle the dispute by a volunteer
 * Request for comment: Openly ask for comments from the community
 * Arbitration: Formally decide on actions and sanctions with a panel
 * ✅ Nice explanation!

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- Raise at article talk to discuss whether to add the content.
 * ✅ Exactly. The only way the process will be solved is if the editors involved talk it over and come to a consensus.

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- Ignore the accusation and state that the creator can contest the deletion by process if they disagree.
 * Insulting other editors is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Use a user warning template to alert the accuser to this fact, while remaining civil.

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- Put that up at article talk to discuss.

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- Ignore the insult and definitely not retaliate, and request for revdel by if it's really bad.
 * Again, insulting people is not acceptable. This is a serious matter, so you should warn them on their talk page with a high-level personal attack template, and if the insults continue, report them to WP:AIV immediately. RevDel is not bad idea, though.

6.) Q- OPINION: Is there any way to make the dispute resolution process easier?
 * A- It would be easier for new editors if there is one place to go for any kind of DR requests, but that would also mean we need much more editors to refer everyone.
 * ✅ I agree, it does seem a bit difficult to know which place to get help, especially if you've new to Wikipedia's community.

End of test
Here you go! ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Q1~5  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 12:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC) and Q6 12:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Great job! Don't be afraid to warn other users who insult you, especially if they are new and inexperienced. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal break
You're about half way 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 started to edit articles of video games I like. After I lurk around a bit the WP: pages I found myself rather liking the way things work here, so I stayed to edit more generally. Also similar times I decided to learn formally how things work than just reading and doing it, and adoption is one of the ways I found and joined.

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- Hisashi Yarouin is one of the pseudonyms I came up to use on the internet.

3.) Q- What are your major interests? What type of things do you like to do on Wikipedia?
 * A- Video games, especially puzzle and music/rhythm. On Wikipedia I frequent AFD and RFD the most. I also got to like Recent Changes patrol after that lesson.

4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
 * A- Frankly I don't really care much for the bigger goals like GAs or adminship I heard. I guess to at least finish (get out of stub status) for the articles I care more.

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) 17:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Answer. And if it's okay I'd like to know more about page protection (and salting, which kinda sounds related). I've heard of that all around, especially when Cytus has been under protection for as long as I know of, but I don't know much beyond it's to stop people from editing.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 13:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! These are good to know. I'll put up a lesson on page protection (which, by the way, is the same thing as "salting") as soon as I have time. I'll be gone this week on vacation. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 11: Page protection
This will be a short lesson, especially since I am limited in both knowledge and experience with this subject, as I am not an admin nor do I plan on becoming one :) 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) 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 11
That's pretty much it. Anything else you want to know while we're on the subject? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the introduction. I was going to ask if there is any quicker way to check who and why put in the protection, and then WP:RFPP pointed me to "View logs" in the history page.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 00:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 12: 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 certian trusted users.

The page here shows a table listing the rights of all types of users. I'll briefly cover the abilities of each type here, as well as how people get these abilities.

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 12
That's that! I thought we might as well do a lesson on permissions after doing one on page protection. Any questions before we move on to our last couple lessons? ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm good here. Thanks for the summary. (And sorry for a rather late reply, among other real life commitments approaching graduation and stuff.)  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 10:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Lesson 13: 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 guildlines 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 13
Questions? Hope your graduation goes well :) ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)