User:Bellerophon/Adoption/Selene Scott

Discussion
Hi Selene, this is your adoption page! This is where I will post your assignments as you progress. This section (the discussion section) is an area where you can ask me questions if you need help.

You first assignment is above. Please read through this information to gain an understanding of The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. You will notice that some words or terms appear as blue links. If you click on the blue links, they will take you to pages that further explain these words or terms. Many of these links point to important Wikipedia policies. Once you have had enough time to read through the information above, post a message here to let me know you have finished and are ready to move on. I will then post a series of questions for you to answer, on The Five Pillars. These will be posted below this section. Good Luck! Pol430 talk to me 17:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have read through them and will continue to. Go ahead and fire some questions at me! "Selene Scott (talk)"


 * Hi Selene, did you know that you can add a colon at the beginning of a line, to indent the text? This has the benefit of making text 'cascade', it's very helpful on talk pages to make conversations easier to follow. If the post before you used a colon to indent their text, you should use two. The next person would use three, and so on... Also, adding your signature to posts is easy; just add 4 tildes (~) at the end of your post. This will add your signature and a date/time stamp once you click 'save page'. You can find a quick reference guide to wikipedia 'code' at Cheatsheet. Pol430  talk to me 10:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good work on your first assignment Selene. Have a read through my comments and let me know when you are ready for assignment two. P.S. I know I just spent ages telling you about using colons. But you only need to use them during discussions (like this one). When answering the questions, please just put your answer on the same line as the :Answer: text. Sorry for not explaining that earlier. Pol430  talk to me 11:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * :) got it! "Selene Scott (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)"
 * I'm pleased that I did well on the first test. I did find my way to 'peacock' terms, and you are correct that I was trying to find instances of those types of phrases within the article. What you said about verifiability makes it a bit clearer, thank you. I will hit the links for consensus and oversight. I am ready to continue. "Selene Scott (talk)"

Questions
Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable.

1. The first 'pillar' talks about what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Take at look at the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damp Proofing And Rising damp In The UK. This is a pending submission, please do not edit it. Just read through it and tell me if you think what has been written is suitable for Wikipedia and why? (ignore any other issues like references and notability&mdash;just focus on the style of writing)
 * Answer: I would say this is indiscriminant information, not clearly defined.
 * Review: Yes, that's a pretty accurate analysis. If it was written slightly better, it might be considered an 'essay' &mdash; which are also unsuitable for Wikipedia.

2. Considering the second 'pillar' is about neutrality. Give some examples of 'Peacock' terms or words.
 * Answer: The article lacks good definition. An article should not advocate or include opinion. article states "there are a number of issues" then goes on to list them in a bias and opinionated manner. "a system was designed in Holland that proved"-this is advocating.
 * Review: I was actually just asking for general examples of peacock words, rather than asking you to look for them in that example. Sorry for not making that clearer. The purpose of the question was to see if you could find your way to WP:PEACOCK, which it sounds like you have, so you passed that test :).

3. Imagine you come across an article that is sourced only to internet blogs. Are blogs reliable sources and why?
 * Answer: Blogs are an individuals record of informal speech. They are not sources that can be used as a citation since they are not verifiable. Blogs may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but use caution because the blogs may not have had to undergo fact checking.
 * Review: Good answer! Although, blogs can sometimes be used to 'verify' facts in an article &mdash; see WP:NEWSBLOG. You are correct that, generally speaking, blogs are not considered reliable sources.

4. Explain what the notion of 'verifiability' applies to?
 * Answer: "Verifiability" means that you must include a verifiable source to any material that is quoted, challenged or likely to be challenged. A source is the subject itself, its creator, or its publisher. It must be a published work by a reliable third party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Academic and peer-reviewed publications, publications from newspapers, university textbooks,books published by respected publishing houses, magazines,and journals.
 * Review: That's a good overview of what constitutes a reliable source! However, consider that an article consists of 3 main component parts:
 * 1) The content: This is the actual body-text of the article. I.e. what has actually been written about the subject of the article.
 * 2) The formatting: This is the bit that makes all articles stick to similar layout. Things like section titles, infoboxes, text formatting etc.
 * 3) The references: These are the sources that have been placed in the article to 'back-up' what someone has written in the content.
 * The notion of 'verifiability' applies only to the content. Whatever has been written about the subject must be 'verifiable'; that is to say, we must be able to 'check' that what has been written is supported by the the references. In summary: references must be 'reliable', content must be 'verifiable'. Does that make sense?

5. Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. You decide to do a minor copyedit and fix some spelling and grammar errors. 10 minutes later, you get a message from the editor who created the article, saying: "STOP CHANGING MY ARTICLE! I made it and you have no right to edit it without my permission. It's my intellectual property and therefore I own the copyright." How do you respond?
 * Answer: No one owns the materials that they edit or create on Wikipedia, it is public domain. I would try and quote the Wiki polices to the user as an explanation of why I felt I had the right to edit their material, but I would also tell them positive things about what they wrote and try to keep the peace.
 * Review: That's a great answer! Particularly, the part about giving them positive feedback. You obviously have the right mentality to do well on Wikipedia :). Material on Wikipedia is not quite public domain, but we will cover that in more detail during the 'copyright' assignment, later in the course. You are correct that nobody 'owns' a Wikipedia page, not even their own userpage, and other editors are free to edit it, provided the edit is constructive, and there is a reason to do it. Well done!

6. If two editors have a disagreement over an article, how should they try and resolve it (in the first instance)?
 * Answer: They should discuss it on the talk page and try to work it out themselves. Sometimes a third party, informal mediation can help resolve. There are different levels of dispute resolution within Wikipedia.
 * Review: Good answer, Spot on! In the first instance, editors should discuss things on a talk page and try to reach consensus.

7. Considering the fourth pillar is about how you behave to other editors, what's the basic rule of the 'no personal attacks' policy?
 * Answer: "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack" but certain statements are never acceptable such as:Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious,sexual, ethnic, political, etc. No 'outing' a person as to their real identity. No comparing to Nazi's, Hitler, Manson, or other such infamous personality's. . Rule of thumb: comment on the content, not the contributor.
 * Review: Good answer! "comment on the content, not the contributor." is what I was looking for. Some good additional points covered, well done!

Curveball question for extra points: You come across the user page of a new user. It contains their real, full name, their date of birth, their full home address and their mobile telephone number. They also write a little about themselves, saying they are a 10 year old boy and like football, playing x-box and hanging out in Green Park on Sundays. What should you do about this?
 * Answer: I would refer it to administrators to deal with, for the person's protection.
 * Review: The curveball question is designed to be tough. You have given a good, sensible answer! In this case, it is not quite correct. Wikipedia takes child protection very seriously, it also takes the publishing is personal information very seriously (as you have already touched on in 'outing'). In this case, we are dealing with the issue of personal details of child, being published on Wikipedia. User pages are indexed by internet search engines, meaning that potentially, the details of that child could appear in search engine results to millions of people around the world. In cases like this, we need to ensure that information is removed as quickly as possible, without drawing attention to it. Because of this, we would not 'post' about an incident like this on Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. In fact, you should not communicate with anyone 'on Wiki' about it (to avoid drawing attention). It is not sufficient to simply 'blank' the page, because the information would still be visible in the page history. In cases like this we need the help of an oversighter. Oversighters are highly trusted users (who are also administrators or foundation staff members), that can remove information from public view and even beyond the view of administrators. In situations like this, you should follow the instructions at Requests for oversight &mdash; which basically involves sending an email to the oversight team, drawing their attention to the page in question. The oversight email address is monitored 24hrs a day and is a secure, private means of contacting an oversighter.

Great work Selene, you have demonstrated a very good understanding of most parts of the five pillars. Please read over my comments, and let me know when you are ready to move on to assignment two. I have marked your performance in this assignment as Grade A.
 * Summary:

Discussion
This assignment concerns the notability guidelines. Take some time to read through the text above and I will post your questions within the next 24hrs. Good luck! Pol430 talk to me 22:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions
Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable.

1. Are any and all reliable sources (broadly construed) suitable for conferring notability, or are there additional requirements?
 * Answer:

Yes, there are additional requirements. Significant coverage in reliable sourcesthat are independent of the subject.Several references about the subject are required, not just passing mention. Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject.
 * Review: Correct. Perfect answer.

2. If a company is notable enough for Wikipedia, is the person who owns the company also notable enough for Wikipedia? Explain your answer.
 * Answer:

There are no guarantees within criteria as to the suitability of a subject to be considered notable. Just because the company may be notable, that does not mean that its owner is notable enough to have a separate article written on them.
 * Review: That's right, notability is not inherited (in any sense of the term...)

3. Imagine you are an AfC reviewer, you find an article submission about an NGO that helps to feed starving children in Africa. The person who created it leaves a note on the submission saying that it should be accepted into Wikipedia because it is for a good cause. You examine the submission and find that it is quite well written, but it has no references and falls short of the notability criteria at WP:CORP. What do you do?
 * Answer:

Just because its for a good cause does not make it suitable to be included in an Encyclopedia. I would politely decline the article, but I would state that if the article could be brought up to speed as to the references and meeting some of the criteria, that we would give it a second consideration for inclusion. This answer is a common sense answer, I had trouble finding exact reference to the subject.
 * Review: Good answer, common sense is good, I like common sense. In fact, it's policy!

4. Imagine you are an AfC reviewer again, you find an article submission about a journalist. It has 20 references that all point to columns in The Huffington Post that discuss him in detail. On closer inspection you see that the subject of the article was the author of those columns (I.e. he wrote them). Is he considered notable?
 * Answer:

Not necessarily. He would need multiple instances of articles written about him not by him. And the articles would have to come from some other sources, not the Huffington Post.
 * Review: Correct.

5. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yellow Emerald Mining Company, is the subject of the submission notable? Explain you answer.
 * Answer:

I would say that the subject has not had significant coverage from secondary sources. One of the references was from a blog page and I would consider the writing to be and incomplete, very brief stub.
 * Review: Correct, the two sources are not sufficient to establish notability. Only one of those sources actually mentions the company by name, and only mentions it once.

I see that I somehow combined the answers and questions together. I don't know how that happened or how to correct it. It looks okay here.? I fixed it, yaa!
 * Don't worry, good work and fixing any display issues.

Very well done Selene, you have demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of notability. I have marked your performance in the assignment as Grade A. Pol430 talk to me 19:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Summary

Discussion
This one is a heavy subject Selene, take your time, there is no deadline. Pol430 talk to me 22:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Fair use images must be used in at least one article (not "orphaned")"? One article in what? Wikipedia or something else? And what is "article 'namespace'? I saw the term highlighted once but lost where that was. "Selene Scott (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)"
 * Yes it means Wikipedia article. Article namespace is also referred to as the 'mainspace'. You can find out more at WP:NAMESPACE. Pol430  talk to me 19:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm going to go slowly through this chapter as I just started a new job."Selene Scott (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)"
 * No problem, take your time. Pol430  talk to me 10:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey there, well lets call this a wrap. I'm ready for review. Clearly there are some aspects which I don't understand too well."Selene Scott (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)"
 * Well done Selene! that was a tough assignment, but you've made it! Have a read through my comments and let me know when you are ready to move on. Pol430  talk to me 18:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at least I passed. Cheers! That Gin & Tonic was needed right about now!"Selene Scott (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)"

Questions

 * 1. Name at least two situations in which it is appropriate to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons.
 * Answer:

When you want to publish your own image, you can release it into the public domain. And Fair use is allowable for logo's so I would say to upload one of those would be an appropriate reason.
 * Review: 1) Yes, you can upload an image of your own to commons and either release it into the public domain or license it under a 'free license'. 2) No, you cannot upload images to commons under a fair use rationale. Fair use images must be uploaded directly to Wikipedia.
 * 2. What sort of media should be uploaded directly to Wikipedia, rather than commons?
 * Answer:

Free images which may be either public domain or under a free licence such as CC-By-SA. Non free images can be uploaded as long as the fair-use policy is strictly adhered to.
 * Review: 1) Although you can upload media directly to Wikipedia under a free license, Wikipedia would prefer it if people uploaded such images to Wikimedia Commons. Very cleverly, if an image is hosted on Commons, you can still link to it in a Wikipedia article, just like you would if the file was hosted on Wikipedia directly! 2) Yes, fair use media must only be uploaded directly to Wikipedia; it cannot be uploaded to Commons.
 * 3. Can anyone reproduce Wikipedia articles elsewhere on the internet? Explain your answer.
 * Answer:

Yes, the work on Wikipedia can be shared and remixed, combined into collections and redistributed according to the CC-By-SA licence.
 * Follow up question: Does the person reproducing the Wikipedia article have to give Wikipedia any credit?
 * Answer: "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the C.C. license" I think this statement says that to do the above is all that is required.
 * Review: Correct, on both counts. Good answer!
 * 4. Can you upload a press photo of the pianist Lang Lang under a claim of fair use?
 * Answer:

Only if it couldn't be replaced by a free alternative.
 * Review: The term 'press photo' generally means an image sourced from a media website like Getty images etc. You cannot upload these under a fair use rationale because you could quite conceivably take a photo of Lang Lang yourself, by attending one of his concerts, and upload that. Per point 1 of Non-free content criteria.
 * 5. You find an article about a company. The text of the article is a direct copy of the 'About Us' page on the company's website. The company webpage has a copyright logo at the bottom, with the words 'All rights reserved'. What should you do?
 * Answer

Either re-word it to say the same thing in different words or attribute the article to them.
 * Review: 1) Yes, you could fundamentally re-write the article, that would eliminate the copyright violation. 2) No, attribution only applies where the content is licensed under a 'free license' that requires attribution (like Wikipedia pages released under CC-By-SA). 'All rights reserved' means exactly that. The copyright holder (usually the creator) holds all the rights to the material and you have no right to reproduce it. The correct answer was that: It is a copyright violation, it should be tagged for speedy deletion as such. We will cover deletion in the next assignment.
 * 6. You find another article about an organization. You notice that the text of the article is basically identical to the organization's webpage. The editor who created the article has changed a few words, but the text is basically a reproduction of what is written on the organization's home page. The organization's home page does not contain any information about copyright, nor does it contain a 'copyleft' statement. Is the article a copyright violation?
 * Answer:

It wouldn't violate copyright but isn't that what they call plagiarism, copying someone else's work?
 * Review: You're right, it is a form of plagiarism, called 'close paraphrasing'. If the article were a direct copy of the company's home page then it would still be a clear copyright violation. This is because, even though there is no copyright info on the company's home page, it is a matter of Wikipedia policy to presume that copyright exists unless is explicitly disclaimed. In the absence of copyright information, the default position is to assume that 'All rights are reserved'. Most webpages do contain copyright information at the bottom of the page. Where 'close paraphrasing is concerned, it starts getting more complicated. It depends on how close the paraphrased text is to the origional. The article needs to be investigated thoroughly by an editor who is experienced in copyright investigations. We won't cover this here, if you ever come across this problem, seek help.
 * 7. Is it a violation of copyright to copy and paste text from a facebook page, to use in a Wikipedia article? Explain your answer.
 * Answer:

Not of copyright but that kind of context can't be verified or attributed can it?
 * Review: It is a copyright violation. The content of a Facebook page is presumed to be subject to copyright, and the person who created the Facebook page is presumed to be the copyright holder.
 * 8. Under what conditions is it acceptable to reproduce copyrighted text in a Wikipedia article?
 * Answer:

If you know who owns it you must ask permission to use the material. You must explain to them that by allowing it, it would then fall under the bylaws of the CC-BY-SA license and what that entails. It is recommended that you try to obtain dual licensing from them that also includes GNU Free Documentation License.
 * Review: Good answer but if the text is released to Wikipedia, it is no longer considered 'copyrighted' -- in the traditional sense. 'Free licensing' statements are sometimes called 'copyleft' statements. The correct answer is that copyrighted text can be published on Wikipedia, only as a direct quotation. It must also be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source.
 * 9. Explain the conditions for uploading a copyrighted company logo, for use in the Wikipedia article about the same company.
 * Answer:

This fair use is acceptable because no matter where or how the logo is displayed it will be under the same copyright. There is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.
 * Review: Correct, well done!
 * 10. Curveball question for extra points: Considering that Wikipedia can be accessed and edited globally, which country's copyright laws are generally used and upheld on English Wikipedia? Be specific about the legal jurisdiction.
 * Answer:

I remember reading about it but for the life of me I can't find where that was. I believe that the country was the US.
 * Review: Correct! I have just realized that I erroneously asked you give a specific legal jurisdiction. However, I believe US copyright law is a federal matter and therefore the simple answer of "US" is perfectly correct.

Summary
Good work Selene, this was a tough subject but you have got through it! You still seem a bit unsure of some areas, but that is to be expected at this stage in your 'Wiki career'. You have shown sufficient grasp of the basics of copyright to pass this assignment. Also, because you got the curveball question right, you get a star! I have marked your performance in this assignment as Grade C*

Discussion
Hi Selene, your next assignment is on deletion. You should find this a bit easier to get to grips with than copyright, but it can still be a fairly involved subject. Questions will be posted in 48hrs; as always there is no deadline for answering them. Take your time and good luck! Pol430 talk to me 21:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. BTW, what is the * after my grade C mean?"Selene Scott (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)"
 * The star is awarded for correctly answering the 'curveball question'. Pol430  talk to me 19:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do only average work on copyright but I get the curveball question right?!!! wow"Selene Scott (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)"
 * Yep, you're doing well! Ok, I have added the questions for the deletion assignment, there is also a 'sort-of' practical test to complete. Have a read through and pay attention to the 'Rules' of the practical test. Complete in your own time. Good luck! Pol430  talk to me 14:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm ready for review! That was kinda fun and amusing!"Selene Scott (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)"
 * I'm glad you enjoyed it! The examples in the practical test were mostly based on real stuff, that I have found as a new page patroller. I've moved your answers up onto the same line that you see ::Answer: I know you said that everything looked bunched-up but it makes it so much easier for me to reiew if it's on the same line. It also means the Wikimarkup works properly, could you place your answers on the same line in future? I'd be very grateful. Have a read through the review and let me know when you are ready to move on. Oh, and have you installed Twinkle yet? If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just let me know and I will guide you through it. Pol430  talk to me 11:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will put my answers on the same line from now on. What major point of the last chapter did I not quite grasp? Whenever I get a mark lower than an A, I suspect that there was some statement you were looking for that I didn't include in my answers( With the exception of the copyright chapter because I know there were many points I didn't quite understand). I will install Twinkle now and post again if I have any questions on its use. Thank you ! "Selene Scott (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)"

It's not that you failed to grasp major points, you are doing very well! The only reason I gave a B rather than an A is more on minor misunderstandings. Such as: applying the F1 and F5 criteria to question one in the practical test. In answer to question 3 you seemed to blur the terms 'proposed' and 'discussion' in relation to page deletions -- they are two separate mechanisms for deletion. I hope you aren't discouraged by these grades? An grade B is defined as 'a good understanding of the subject matter' so you have exceeded the standard required. The purpose of the grade system is to highlight areas that you may wish to do a bit of 'extra-curricular' reading on, not to disparage you or suggest your understanding of the subject is insufficient so please don't think it's personal :) Pol430  talk to me 20:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't take it that way. I confess to being a bit of a perfectionist which is why I wanted to know exactly what I missed a little. Your critique on the questions is actually so positive I have a hard time telling which ones I missed! But what you said here is exactly what I was looking for in this particular case! Thanks! I'm ready for assignment 5 when you are."Selene Scott (talk)"
 * Will you be going over the use of Twinkle with me?"Selene Scott (talk)"
 * Hi Selene, yes we will be covering the use of Twinkle a little later on. Pol430  talk to me 22:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions
Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable.


 * 1. According to the deletion policy, approximately how many pages does Wikipedia delete in one day?
 * Answer: Approximately 5 thousand pages are deleted per day.
 * Review: That's correct, I suspect that info might be slightly out of date and highly changeable.
 * 2. What does CSD mean?
 * Answer: Criteria for Speedy Deletion
 * Review: Correct
 * 3. Explain how the CSD criteria differ from other deletion processes.
 * Answer: CSD articles can be deleted, by an Administrator, without any discussion, if they meet one or more of the criteria. For articles that don't meet the CSD, they are proposed and given the opportunity for discussion and determined by group consensus.
 * Review: That's pretty much correct. CSD criteria are very specific, if something does not quite meet the criteria it should not be tagged for CSD. Pages that don't meet the CSD criteria but obviously need to be deleted can be PROD'd (with a rationale for deletion). If the deletion is likely to be controversial, or someone removes the PROD tag, then the page should be listed at the appropriate 'deletion discussion'.
 * 4. What does PROD mean?
 * Answer: It stands for 'Proposed Deletion'.
 * Review: Correct
 * 5. Who is allowed to remove a PROD tag?
 * Answer: Any editor who disagrees can remove the tag. If a page gets tagged with a CSD tag, the page creator cannot remove the tag, but other editors may.
 * Review: Correct and good additional information about CSD tags.
 * 6. What is a BLPPROD and when can you remove a BLPPROD tag?
 * Answer: BLPROD is 'purposed deletion of Biography of a living person. In 2010, a policy was created that requires all biography of living persons to include one reliable source that supports at least one statement in the bio. If tagged no one can remove the tag until the material is properly sourced. If it does not get sourced after 10 days it can be deleted.
 * Review: Correct
 * 7. How long must PRODs and BLPPRODs remain unchallenged, before they can be deleted by an administrator?
 * Answer: If unchallenged, they can be removed by Admin in 7 days.
 * Review: Almost, remember that BLPPRODs have to hand around for 10 days, normal PRODs for 7 days.
 * 8. What is the difference between the CSD 'A' criteria and the CSD 'G' criteria?
 * Answer: 'A' criteria deals with tags for Articles. 'G' criteria deals with tags under General category.
 * Review: Correct, A criteria only apply to articles, G criteria apply to any page.

The 'A' category is for Articles only while the 'G' category includes Articles and...........
 * Curveball question. Give at least two examples of other 'namespace' that have CSD criteria associated with them.
 * Answer: .......All other Namespace such as: user pages, talk pages, redirects, files, and test pages.
 * Review: Yep, although there is no 'test' namespace.

Practical test
Please take a look at User:Pol430/Sandbox5. This page contains seven examples of new pages that may be suitable for Speedy Deletion. Please read through it and explain below which CSD criteria would apply to each example&mdash;if any!
 * Rules:


 * You may utilize any of the CSD 'Article' criteria and any of the CSD 'General' criteria; Except, CSD G3 (Vandalism) -- you may not use that criteria in this test, other criteria must be appropriately applied.
 * For the purpose of the test all the examples appear on that one page, but treat each example as if it were a separate page that you had found somewhere on Wikipedia.
 * Each of the examples gives an indication of namespace: some say 'Article' others say 'Page'. You must apply the correct criteria, according to namespace.
 * In your answers, you may just give the correct deletion code. For example: G11. You do not have to write out the whole name or explain your answer, but feel free to do so if you really want to.


 * Answers
 * 1. G1,F1,F5
 * Review: Yes this patent nonsense with some example image markup thrown in, criteria G1 applies. The images are blank examples images, we would not delete those. The F criteria only apply in the 'File' namespace -- that is to say the page title must begin with File:. E.g. File:Example.jpg.
 * 2. G10
 * Review: Yes, this is an attack page.
 * 3. G10
 * Review: Yes, this is what we call a negative BLP. It can be deleted under the G10 criteria as well.
 * 4. A7
 * Review: Yes, I'm sure Henry is a lovely cat, but he is not in the least bit important or significant.
 * 5. Its useless info but on a user page. I was going to say no content but that doesn't apply. I think you got me with this one, although I thought I remembered reading something about pointless information.
 * Review: I screwed up with this example, I should have made it clear that the example is not a userpage. In which case it would be a test edit and G2 would apply. You get full marks anyway :)
 * 6. A1,A3
 * Review: Yes, I would suggest it is more appropriate to tag this example as A1 than A3. You could arguably use A3, but I suspect the reviewing admin would be happier to delete it under A1.
 * 7. G11
 * Review: Yes, a very clear cut case of promotion/advertising.

Summary
Good work Selene, I have graded your performance in this assignment as Grade B* Pol430  talk to me 17:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Here is assignment 5 for you Selene, questions will follow soon. When I've thought of some ;) Pol430  talk to me 22:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions are ready Selene, just three for this assignment. However, question number 3 will be added to with 'follow-up' questions once you have answered it. There will be several follow-up questions for question 3... :) Pol430  talk to me 21:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions
1. Imagine you have just reviewed a submission at Articles for Creation. You have decline the submission because it is about a non-notable person. A short while later, the author of the submission leaves a message at your user talk page saying: "why don't you just fuck off!" they have also undone your review of the submission which has resulted in the submission being placed back in 'pending review' status. What do you do?
 * Answer: Well, I would try talking with the author to reach a compromise. I would direct them to the notability guidelines. I would 'assume good faith' and not follow suit with the name calling. If that failed and the author remained uncivil, I would turn to wikiquette assistance. About the fact that the revert placed it back in pending, I think I would try to resolve with discussion first. If I change it back first they will do the same and we would be edit warring. This doesn't fit RfC/U criteria
 * Review: I should probably consider adding to this lesson, a section about warning other users. In this kind of situation, you should consider leaving a message at the other users talk page warning them against personal attacks and of the requirement to behave in a civil manner. Telling another editor to 'fuck off' is not a legitimate comment about your contributions to Wikipedia, it is a grossly uncivil personal attack. Often, new editors will submit submissions about non-notable people (living and dead), unfortunately no amount of good editing will make an unimportant person notable, so it may not be possible to meet this new editors expectations through compromise -- but ten out of ten for for trying :).

2. Imagine you add some well referenced info to an article about a living celebrity. The info details some negative media attention the celebrity received last year. The info you have added is attributed to multiple, reliable sources and is written from a neutral point of view; it is relevant to the article and is proportionate; it fully complies with WP:BLP. Not long after this, you get a message on your user talk page. It is from a newly registered editor who claims to be the legal representative of the celebrity in the article. They threaten to sue you for liable because they believe you have added negative information to their clients Wikipedia page. They state that they are going have your account traced and start legal proceedings against you. How do you react?
 * Answer: I would stand by my edit and show that it followed and complied with all criteria of BOLP in a discussion with the user, but, until resolved I would revert the edit to the former version.
 * Review: No need for you to revert your edit if you are sure that it did not violate any policy. If someone makes a legal threat against you, warn the user and seek assistance from an administrator -- consider posting at WP:AN/I. If the new editor is a professional lawyer, they will know better than to make arbitrary legal threats on a public internet site. Any legal problems should be properly directed to the WMF's legal counsel -- you should not have to put up with being threatened with legal action on Wikipedia.

3. You have made five edits to an article, making minor improvements. Another editor comes along and undos all your edits without leaving an edit summary to explain why. They do not leave a message at your talk page, or on the article talk page either. How do you react?
 * Answer:This actually happened already with the edits I made to 'The Prestige' the film page. I didn't want to start edit warring. Also, the new version that was written was well written and included re-writes to some area's that I had not gotten to yet.  My reason for editing the article in the first place was to try and improve it. The page as it is now written 'is improved'.  I would handle this situation the same, since they were only minor edits, better just to leave it alone, rather than get into a dispute.
 * Review: Excellent! You've rather blown my followup questions out of the water... But that's ok because you seem to have exactly the right attitude to handling disputes, so I don't think we really need to dwell on this section too much.

Summary
I've just realized that my questions were pretty poor for this section because the reading material I have put up does not help you with the answers to questions 1 and 2. I will revise this lesson to make it more comprehensive. You have shown a very good attitude to handling conflict Selene and you seem to have easily absorbed the information about the dispute resolution process. I have graded this assignment Grade A. Pol430  talk to me  17:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh thank God! One out of three is not good. In searching for answers to 1 and 2 I clicked every link that even remotely pertained to the subject, but was unable to find exactly what I was looking for. I was thinking 'Man these questions are hard, why can't I find the answers?"

So I just ended up thinking them over and writing down what I would do if hit with the circumstances at this time. I guess in the process of trying to 'overlook, assume faith, no angry mastodon' etc,.I missed the point that says "All that considered, don't be a door mat!" to people who go ballistic right off the bat, as in 1 and 2. "Selene Scott (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)" (don't know why there is a space there, it doesn't show on here)?

Discussion
I don't feel like I did this right. Can we try another exercise? I like this subject, and the study material was good."Selene Scott (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)"
 * okay check this out you see where they put a promoting statement before the first sentence? that's inappropriate. So if I were to try and take that out, what would I do?  I went to edit that paragraph but for some reason that sentence doesn't appear in it. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get this. So the page shows the left hand column like it was and on the right it shows the sentence was added in.  Across the top of the right hand column it says rollback then just rollback and then in red rollback vandal.  We use those the revert edits right? So if I thought it was vandalism, I'd click rollback vandal, right? "Selene Scott (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)"
 * Hi Selene, sorry for the lack of response I've been away for a few days, I'm back now but very jet-lagged so I'll go through this tomorrow evening (UTC) if that's ok. :) Pol430   talk to me  16:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'd been up for about 22 hours when I first attempted the assignment so no wonder it didn't make any sense to me. I'm going over it again and should have the three answers posted shortly. "Selene Scott (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)"
 * Okay, I'm ready for you to check these. Disregard comments above. the 'rollback' options are from Twinkle, I got that now!"Selene Scott (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)"
 * Some questions:


 * Why do some user names in Recent Changes appear in Red?
 * A bold N means new article, what does a bold m mean?
 * Hi Selene, sorry for late response (again). USer names appear in red when that user does not have a user page. Either because it has been deleted, or they never created one in the first place. Red user names are generally an indication of a very new account, but a few very experienced editors choose to not have a user page also. The bold m means that edit was marked as a minor edit, by ticking the minor edit checkbox. Rollback edits are automatically marked as minor and bot edits are often marked as minor. Pol430   talk to me  08:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See my talk page as one of the users of an edit I marked for either vandal or nonconstructive left me a message saying they disagreed. I left a short note on their talk page saying Noted. and that I'm learning and would let my mentor know."Selene Scott (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)"
 * Noted. Not to worry, we all learn by our mistakes. That particular page is a bit of Wikipedia oddity. There will be a lot of other Wikipedians who think it should be deleted, but an almost equal number who think it should be kept. It was listed for deletion back in 2010 (see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes ) but the result was 'keep'. Pol430   talk to me  14:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions
Now that that's over with, go do your task. Have fun! (By the way, please ignore new pages, indicated by a bold "N" on the log entry.)
 * Diff 1: Why you think this is vandalism:This is a vandalism revert made by a bot.  I agree that the sentence needed to be taken out.  It was added in using bad grammar and the text just didn't belong shoved into that sentence.  I think this would be a case of a person who didn't really intend to vandalize but who made a poor edit that did not improve the article.
 * Yes, this was an unconstructive edit. Cluebot probably reverted that edit because it contained the words 'hitler' and 'racism' in an article that had nothing to do with either of those things.
 * Diff 2: Why you think this is vandalism:It's obvious. IP added inappropriate sentence containing sex talk.
 * Yes, classic vandalism.
 * Diff 3: Why you think this is vandalism:I think I found one that hasn't been corrected yet. It looks like they took out a reference and added useless info in its place. I would revert this. Would that be a correct action?
 * I wouldn't revert that as it looks like that info had some relevance to the paragraph. I would re-insert the reference and advise the user who made the edit not to remove references without good reason.
 * I wasn't in Special Recent Changes. So here are 3 more:


 * Diff 4: Why you think its vandalism:Another revert by a bot for foul language
 * Yes, another example of classic vandalism
 * Diff 5: Why you think its vandalism:they added in information to beginning of paragraph. I don't know what to call the type of sentence they put in.
 * I would call that example 'patent sillyness' and would label it as a form of vandalism. Usually these kind of edits come from bored/stoned college students who think it's incredibly witty of them...
 * Diff 6: Why you think its vandalism: Flippant comment deleted.
 * Yes, It looks like that editor was just trying to make a point -- using very poor prose. I would revert that as POV pushing or soapboxing. It's so flippant, that I would be happy to label it vandalism.

Test
Now that you have demonstrated you can identify vandalism, it's time to put those skills into practice! I would like to you patrol Special:Recentchanges and find 10 examples of vandalism or other unconstructive edits. Then, revert those edits using one of the 3 Twinkle rollback links. Once, you have reverted the edit, you should advise/warn the user who made it.

You can also use Twinkle to warn users. By navigating to an editors user talk page, you will see a tab at the top of the page that says 'warn' clicking on this will bring up the warnings menu where you can select an appropriate warning. You can use the 'preview' link to check that the warning is the correct one, before you click submit. Read WikiProject user warnings/Usage and layout (just the levels section, ignore the rest) to find out more about warning users.

Vandalism has a very specific set of definitions on Wikipedia. You can find the definitions at WP:VANDTYPES and a list of things that are not vandalism at WP:NOTVAND. You should only use the 'Vandalism' rollback link if the edit was clear-cut vandalism. For other examples of unconstructive editing, use the blue 'rollback' link which will give you the option of leaving an edit summary to explain why you reverted the edit. You can use the green 'AGF' link in cases where the user clearly tried to improve the article, but actually made it worst. Good luck, and ask me if you are not sure of anything.
 * Remember!


 * Diff 1: turns out I had to revert my own edit because it wasn't vandalism! see page diffs to see it. from this link I took out lizard and spock then had to revert because I noticed the image corresponded to the lizard and spock additions. So, I in essence was the vandal and I reverted my own vandalism! Hope that counts! :)
 * Yes, it's all part of the learning process.
 * Diff 2: quack comment with a touch of patent nonsense. Used vandal2 since they had two other general disruptive warnings and I thought that 3 in good faith wasn't applicable.
 * "Lugar mt mt foda" looks like Portuguese slang for "Place to fuck" or something similar -- which constitutes vandalism.
 * Diff 3: I don't know what to do about this. In my opinion the whole page is inappropriate, whether or not its suppose to be humorous. There are links to tons of porn and every other type of offensive statement made throughout the article. I clicked vandal for the one change user made but after reading most of it I think the whole thing should go. Its beyond my level of intervention, you should handle it.
 * Yes, it's one of those pages that was kept for posterity reasons but is now just a page of sillyness. I've added a more obvious tag.
 * Diff 4: I screwed this one up and copied the warning instead of the edit I changed. (*the 'you're wrong' jeopardy buzzer goes off*)
 * Yes, when you issue a warning using Twinkle just link to the Article/Page name in the 'Linked article' field. If you want to add a personal message to the end of the template message, you can type it in the optional message box -- otherwise leave that box blank.
 * Diff 5:issued a caution warning against removal of maintenance tags
 * 'Good, but you can't copy and paste the URL of a diff into Twinkle. It won't work. Just put the page title in there -- i.e. the article name.
 * Diff 6: user warned
 * Good
 * Diff 7:
 * Diff 8: I gave user a level 1warning of vandalism for his 'deer balls' edit
 * Good
 * Diff 9: warned user about making commentary and adding personal views to Wikipedia.
 * Good
 * Diff 10: issued warning although revert had already been made by a bot. Patent Nonsense.
 * Good, remember that when you link to a page, you need to type the page name exactly (it is case sensative) or the link won't work. I find it best to copy and paste page names; which works best when you browse using tabs :-)

Summary
Good work here Selene! I'm going to grade this one an A but just take on board my comments about linking, especially when using Twinkle. Pol430  talk to me  14:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)