User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Final/Jackson Peebles

Final Exam for Jackson Peebles
Congratulations on reaching your final exam. Please follow all instructions carefully.

'''This exam was begun at 01:14, February 16. It will end at 01:14,''' .

Practical Exam
Following are your tasks for the practical exam. When a task is completed, replace the Not done template with Done. You may also use Doing to indicate a task that is currently underway. All tasks must be marked completed before the time stated above. Even if you have done these tasks in the past, please do them again during this exam period.


 * ✅ Patrol five new pages in new page patrol. Post diffs here:
 * 
 * Fair enough; the page was deleted and if Bbb23 thinks that it was tagged correctly, that's good enough for me.
 * 
 * Well, you added the stub tag correctly and tagged that the article is unreferenced, but remember, we need to use WP:BLPPROD for unreferenced biographies of living persons. Though sources have since been added, at the time when you tagged, they were not.
 * 
 * GB fan is a good admin, so if he thought it should have been deleted, that's fine by me.
 * 
 * Looks fine to me, but in the future, you could add categories rather than just tagging it as not having categories. Generally, "drive-by tagging" is frowned upon.
 * 
 * Again, I've never been a fan of tagging an article for not having categories, but no need to rehash my position here.
 * You gave it a valiant effort in NPP, which based on what I've seen from you thus far is not surprising at all. There were a few minor issues, especially in the second one and the fourth ones. Overall, based on those issues, I have decided to give you a 20/25 in NPP. -- Go  Phightins  !


 * ✅ Nominate at least one article for deletion in AFD with a well-reasoned nomination explaining why the article should be deleted. Post the link to the debate here: []
 * All right, we'll see how it turns out.
 * ✅ Participate in at least two AFD debates with well-reasoned comments. Diffs:
 * 
 * You were on the right side of consensus here and you explained how you thought it violated another policy...good job!
 * 
 * That struck me as a rather long-winded way of saying "delete per above", no offense...


 * ✅ Tag at least one article for speedy deletion. Diff:
 * Fine by Bbb23 = Fine by Go Phightins! (at least when it comes to speedy deletion)
 * You did a pretty good job here, which leaves me a little confused about your troubles in the written section. For your efforts in deletion, I will give you an 18/20. -- Go  Phightins  !


 * ✅ Cleanup at least two articles (e.g., resolve at least one problem noted with a maintenance tag and remove said maintenance tag) Diffs:
 * 
 * Thanks for doing that; broken redirects are a pain in the ...
 * 
 * Not quite sure what you did here; add a tag and then remove it?


 * Umm... sort of. It was an orphan, so I added an orphan tag, then I found it parents...
 * Well, your cleanup efforts were...OK. I'll give them a 6/10. I know we didn't spend a whole lot of time on this, but still, I'm really not sure what you did on the second article. The first one was fine. -- Go  Phightins  !


 * ✅ Revert at least eight instances of vandalism and warn the vandals appropriately. Post only the diffs of the reversions themselves, not the warnings. Diffs:
 * 
 * Judging by your edit history, I assume you did the right thing here.
 * 
 * Didn't watch the YouTube video, but assuming it's not worth it.
 * 
 * Probably would have been better just to revert, but what you did was fine.
 * 
 * Once you become a reviewer, that will automatically be accepted.
 * 
 * Good grief. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people can be; do they really think we won't catch them?
 * 
 * That was vandalism waiting to happen. Thanks for the fix.
 * 
 * That might have been a test edit, not vandalism, but still it needed to be reverted.
 * ClueBot is absolutely ridiculously fast, by the way.
 * It absolutely is fast! What great work by its writers. Somewhere online, there's an interesting article about how it was created.
 * This was some outstanding work. 37/40. -- Go  Phightins  !


 * ✅ Join a Wiki-Project of your choosing. Diff:
 * I can't dispute that one. That is a good choice for you. 5/5 -- Go  Phightins  !


 * Extra credit! Upload a file of some kind (picture, sound, etc.) with correct licensing information to either Wikipedia using the File Upload Wizard or the Wikimedia Commons. Add the item to an article and post the diff of you adding it to the article here.
 * I think I'll pass up this opportunity for extra credit. I don't want to upload a picture for the sake of uploading a picture, and the opportunity hasn't presented itself.
 * That's fine, but perhaps at some point you could add pictures of your campus or something...we have a shortage of college campus photos. You're somewhere in Michigan, right? Go   Phightins  !
 * A different opportunity presented itself at the Teahouse, today; I uploaded a picture of myself for my userpage.

In the event you attempt to do a task above but a bot beats you the the task a ridiculously obscene number of times, please make a note of that here. I've tried to do similar tasks before and been incredibly frustrated by the automatic bots. You should be able to demonstrate that you put an honest effort into completing the task.

86/100

Written Exam
42.5/50 (85%)
 * 1) What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
 * A: Consensus, in the context of Wikipedia, is a general agreement among Wikipedia editors, administrators, etc. on a particular topic. It does not merely reflect a "majority rules" mindset but, rather, the overall agreement of the populace after discussion (though this does not mean that it was decided unanimously ; there will always be disagreement).  Wikipedia policies reflect consensus, and consensus must be reached before modification of these policies.  Furthermore, it is Wikipedia policy that consensus should be established before making substantial changes to certain types of pages, such as policies, guidelines, and deletions that do not fit into the speedy categories (or other notable exceptions).
 * Remember, consensus is best judged by administrators and in some cases bureaucrats. I underlined what I thought were especially good points. 5/5 -- Go  Phightins  !
 * 1) You add a PROD tag to an article as it doesn't seem to be notable, but it gets removed by the author ten minutes later. You don't believe he's addressed the notability concerns, so what is one step you could take from here?
 * A: Technically, that's okay, as PROD assumes that the deletion is not controversial. The policy says that one should NOT replace the tag, and I would argue that, technically, a speedy deletion request for a non-notable (whatever) should have been made in the first place point 1 .  However, since I was apparently dumb and initially tacked on a PROD tag, point 2 I would try to reach the editor directly to explain myself and see his/her input as well as express what changes could be made to repair the article (if any), what is WP:NOTABLE, and that I am considering speedy deletion but wanted to touch base, first.
 * At point 1, you would be incorrect; an article should not be tagged for speedy deletion prior to a PROD tag being placed upon it as speedy deletion is only for a narrow set of criteria. Consequently, at point two you would have done the right thing. The best course of action from here would be to send the article to articles for deletion. 3.5/5 -- Go  Phightins  !
 * 1) Flip that situation around. You come across a PROD that you don't think should be deleted, and remove the tag. Your edit is reverted and you get a nasty note on your talk page. What do you do?
 * A: Nasty notes just aren't nice. I would respond with a note explaining why I didn't think that the article should be deleted, and, though not required, I probably should have done so in the first place.  If the article was deleted in the interim, I would request that it be restored.  If I could not reach an agreement with the mean editor, I would tag him/her for personal attacks.
 * Adequate response here...again it would be appropriate to, and you should suggest this to the editor, send the article to AFD. 4/5 -- Go  Phightins  !
 * 1) Define vandalism. When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
 * A: Vandalism is deliberate and malicious defacement of a Wikipedia article, policy, user, or other page that is meant to cause harm to the encyclopedia. Right, vandalism is anything done in bad faith Administrators always keep their eyes out for vandals, but I would not personally bring one up unless it was CLEAR that the editor was purely a vandal, it was becoming a problem, and/or multiple tags had already been placed on the user (including by myself) with well-explained reasoning. This can be done directly to an administrator with which one has a rapport Point 1 or through the noticeboard, assuming you mean WP:AIV though I would posit that an administrator probably already knows what is going on.
 * At point 1: Be careful about that, it's better for boderline cases to notify an admin with which you have a solid rapport (for me that's User:Dennis Brown; most experienced non-admins eventually find an admin who's their "go-to guy") but for blatant cases, it's best for the encyclopedia (to avoid further vandalism) to go straight to AIV.
 * And just a side note, even if you think an admin will have seen something, take it to AIV just in case. 4.5/5 -- Go  Phightins  !
 * 1) You mark a non-notable article for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Moments later, you notice in Recent Changes that the page has been blanked by the author. What do you do?
 * A: This should be taken as a deletion request (per CSD policies) from the original editor. Proceed with deletion.
 * Exactly. It's either criterion G4 or G7, I believe...I want to say G7, but don't quote me on that. Whichever it is, you're right. 5/5 -- Go  Phightins  !
 * 1) You revert something thinking it's vandalism, but you get a rather irate reply on your talk page: "That's not vandalism! This is a serious fact covered my many research articles! How dare you accuse me of (insert type of vandalism here, as well as more complaints)!" You check, and sure enough, he's right. What do you do?
 * A: Apologize. This actually already happened to me, and it was resolved very nicely. The user apologized for the irate tone and said, in essence, that stuff happens and they were not offended.  If I'm at fault, I'm at fault The article was improperly cited, that's one thing, but a mistaken vandalism request deserves an apology even if it was improperly cited, as vandalism should be identified carefully.  Fix any changes you made (revert your revert with an explanation).
 * About that situation you mentioned, both you and Lady of Shalott handled that very well. If more Wikipedians walked around with attitudes like that, we'd be a lot better off. I also liked what you said in the part I underlined. That was just about a perfect answer. 5/5 -- Go  Phightins  !
 * 1) I found an image on a website of a person that could be really useful in an article I'm writing about them. The website doesn't say the image is copyrighted, so what should I do to upload it to Wikipedia?
 * A: Find a different picture that is not copyrighted, ideally, or take one myself (probably not possible, but still). If the picture is genuinely irreplaceable, do what I can to make it so that the image won't be abused (i.e. re-size, reduce quality), then only use according to fair use policies.  Copyright issues are serious, so make sure to follow the rules.
 * Right. Quadruple check to make sure that you follow the fair use guidelines as copyright is a very important issue. We have two primary experts, in my opinion, should you ever need help: User:Moonriddengirl and User:Wizardman. They'll help you out on a talk page or via email. 4.5/5 -- Go  Phightins  !
 * 1) You've been a frequent contributor to an article and have helped get it so it's almost ready for nomination as a featured article. You log in one day to find that it's just been put up for AfD by a new user. Nobody has commented on the debate yet, so what should you do?
 * A: There should be a big button that allows one to contest the deletion, which should stop the deletion if the administrator's any good (and, in my experiences, almost all of them are). Use the big button, explain reasoning, and also reach out to the editor.  If it was really that good, I would be suspicious but still assume good faith, per WP policy.  Maybe welcoming the new user would be good and, using Twinkle, explaining the reasoning behind not thinking the article is suitable for speedy deletion.
 * Remember, this is AFD, not CSD. Only CSD has the button to contest. AFD is a discussion. That said, I'd recommend that in this case you find an admin with whom you have a solid rapport and ask them to speedy close it per WP:SNOW and then discuss it with the user on their talk page. Also, leave a personal note instead of Twinkle for something like this. 3/5 -- Go  Phightins  !
 * 1) If I wrote a template "foo" with this code, what would be displayed when I called it like this: Thanks again! ? Thanks for helping with ! It's a great help.
 * A: Thanks for helping with ! It's a great help. 
 * It should read: "Thanks for helping with Lorem Ipsum! It's been a great help. Go   Phightins  !  23:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)"
 * You were close, though, and we didn't really spend much time on templates (mostly because I'm not very good with them) so I can't penalize you more than a point for that one. 4/5 -- Go  Phightins  !
 * 1) You're working with an new editor to cleanup a page they created. During the course of your discussions, you realize that the content of the article is an exact copy of a textbook the other editor is reading off of. What should you do?
 * A: Ahhh! Plagiarism!  The editor in this case should not only be assumed to have made changes in good faith, but we know this to be the case since they (presumably) reached out to us for cleanup.  This must be deleted immediately for copyright reasons, Point 1 but the user should be reached out to as to why this is.  This is a learning moment, but one that deserves speedy deletion, nevertheless, at least in the parts that plagiarize.
 * Speedy deletion implies the whole article, so that is why I struck it. Only the plagiarized content needs to be removed. You're only partially correct at point one; the content can be paraphrased and rephrased, so it doesn't necessarily need to be deleted. 4/5 -- Go  Phightins  !


 * Total: 128.5/150 (86%)

Questions, Comments, Excuses, Thoughts, etc.
Post any of the aforementioned types of queries in this section.


 * For the cleanup, the first one was a fixed broken double redirect that a bot couldn't fix and was listed in the cleanup section. The second one was an orphan that I fixed.  There are lots of demonstrations of pages that weren't marked that I copyedited; just check my history!
 * Okay, I'll admit that I think that I did #9 in the immediately previous section incorrectly. Could you please explain this to me?
 * Sorry, we didn't really cover templates much (you may have seen my response above), so I'll tell you what. I'll eliminate the question from the final score. Go   Phightins  !  20:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm done! Thanks so much for everything! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)