User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Final/Lukeno94

Final Exam for Lukeno94
Congratulations on reaching your final exam. Please follow all instructions carefully.

'''This exam was begun at 17:26, March 12. It will end at 17:26,''' .

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.

***Like this.
 * ✅ Patrol five new pages in new page patrol. Post diffs here:
 * 
 * You missed that there was an article on the same subject elsewhere and it does not appear you sent it to CSD, so there is a slight problem in that regard.
 * 
 * This was speedily deleted G12 (copyright infringement)  I see below that you were the one who put the tag.
 * 
 * You left the article with some fairly serious problems. It was a two sentence article, one of which made little sense.  In addition, that sentence was in a box
 * I am also not a fan of adding the no categories tag to articles, WP:SOFIXIT is the applicable philosophy here in my opinion. To summarize, you could have fixed at least one problem with one pressing of the backspace key. NPP is more than drive by tagging…


 * 
 * Phil Bridger has a lot of experience in deletion, and he disagrees with your reason. I do too. Not being in English isn’t an automatic disqualification, but eventually it does need to be translated. You should have (assuming of course you had no more idea than I did what that said) listed it as in need of translation.  The reason it will likely be deleted is for non-notability.


 * 
 * Better. Tags were fair.


 * Overall, you had some problem is New Page Patrol and it is an area where you could use some more experience. Grade: 17/25


 * ✅ 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:
 * Esteghlal–Tractor Sazi rivalry
 * Good work. Looks like it’s going to be deleted. The comment to the one editor was a little brash, though.
 * ✅ Participate in at least two AFD debates with well-reasoned comments. Diffs:
 * 
 * Reasoned comment, in-consensus result.
 * 
 * You did well to redirect focus away from the borderline personal attacks being thrown about and back towards the substance of the debate. Excellent job.
 * ✅ Tag at least one article for speedy deletion. Diff:
 * 
 * Got deleted, and the admin rarely mess up copyvios, so that’s good enough for me. We have already established that was fine.


 * I think you deserve a solid 19.5, the only reason for the docking of a half point is the rather brash comment in your nom. That could have been handled a little bit better in my opinion, but still, fantastic work!


 * ✅ Cleanup at least two articles (e.g., resolve at least one problem noted with a maintenance tag and remove said maintenance tag) Diffs:
 * 
 * That one needed some nuking, and you did a good job. One thing I will say, you changed the spelling of “neighborhood” to “neighbourhood” in one instance. Since this article is about an American topic, we usually use American English. No big deal, just food for thought.
 * 
 * Much improved citations; there is nothing worse than Bare URLs, in my opinion, so thanks for fixing those.


 * Cleanup is a thankless task, and you’ve done a good job. 10/10


 * ✅ Revert at least eight instances of vandalism and warn the vandals appropriately. Post only the diffs of the reversions themselves, not the warnings. Diffs:
 * 
 * I’m a little leery of the abundance of templates on that user’s talk page. I don’t think he understand what he’s doing. Nevertheless, that one needed reversion…
 * 
 * Diff Good revert, and I actually like the heavier warning here.
 * 
 * Perhaps a level two warning would have been a better idea here. Still, good work.
 * 
 * As a matter of fact, my co-grader and I disagreed on this one. He thought that your warning was a little heavy-handed and that it may not have been in bad faith. I tend to agree with you that BLP articles need a heavy hand.
 * 
 * Outstanding.
 * 
 * I would have gone one level higher on the warning. It’s really, really hard to think of a reason a good-faith editor would change someone’s name.
 * 
 * Given the long history and obvious nature (or else serious need for a tinfoil adjustment), even a level 4 may have been appropriate. There is nothing wrong with your warning, however, and this is largely a matter of taste.
 * 
 * You’ve gotta wonder about the blankers. What are they thinking? That we can’t get it back?


 * Overall, stellar work. A 38/40 is heading your way. The only discrepancies are matters of opinion and philosophy, for which you cannot be punished. Great effort.

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.
 * ✅ Join a Wiki-Project of your choosing. Diff:
 * 
 * A good choice for you. 5/5
 * ✅ 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.
 * Good. Properly licensed, and your own work, so no copyright infringement.  The picture is appropriate in the article.   +5 extra points.

94.5/100

Written Exam

 * 1) What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
 * A:Consensus is the establishment of the viewpoint of the community. Every Wikipedia policy comes from a community-wide consensus about how actions should be made, be them article edits, image uploads, user communications, or anything else.
 * Consensus is whatever the community says consensus is. .  On a serious note, you are almost correct.  Almost all policies are governed by consensus, but a couple policies (usually the ones with legal implications) are exemptfrom consensus (see for example WP:Child Protection). Decrees from WMF are another example.  4.5/5
 * 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:Take the article to Articles for Deletion, mentioning the contested PROD.
 * Yup. Make sure you notify the creator of the discussion. 5/5
 * 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:Attempt to discuss the situation calmly; if it escalated, report it to an administrator/at ANI.
 * You should firstly assume good faith, secondly assume good faith, and finally assume good faith. You need to remain calm, but don't be in a rush to reply.  I would wait at least 10-15 minutes before I ever thought about replying. And be very careful with ANI, as that always escalates a situation. That should be a last resort, not a first stop. 4/5
 * 1) Define vandalism. When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
 * A:Vandalism is the action of deliberately altering something to give a distorted viewpoint (either through incorrect information, or deliberately inserting attacks into the space). If a user has received multiple warnings (3 or more) for vandalism, then they should be reported.
 * Your definition is far too narrow and not even totally correct. Vandalism is any edit conducted in bad faith with an intent to harm the encyclopedia. Even if the distorted viewpoint edit was made in a full fledged attempt to help the encyclopedia? Is there a difference between a bad edit that is not helpful and full-fledged vandalism?  Is there a clearly defined line between a vandalistic edit and a non-vandalistic one?  For example, if I saw an edit that said "Barack Obama's policies often include elements of socialism." I personally consider this statement undistorted, although I know I might be in the minority.  By your definition, one could disagree about whether the edit was vandalism. Good faith edits can be destructive, but if they're good faith, they are not vandalism. 3/5
 * 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:Tag it under db-blanked, a specific criteria under CSD G7 where it is assumed that the blanking means the author has requested deletion.
 * Precisely. 5/5
 * 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 for my mistake, and try to move on, making sure I am more careful in the future.
 * Yep, make sure you rectify the mistake though. 4.5/5
 * 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:Contact the owner of the website/the person whom the photo is about, and request that I get permission for a "fair-use" of the image in an article.
 * Not quite. They would actually have to release the photo under a compatible creative commons license or into the  public domain, not merely grant a fair use.  Fair use is not something you can be granted, but rather an implied "permission" to use an image you cannot obtain an equivalent of any other way.  The main criteria of fair use are that you cannot get off of your butt and snap an equivalent image (a logo or a photo of a dead person for example), that you use it in as few places as possible, and that it adds significant value to the article.  (there are other requirements too)  This photo would probably fail the first of these criteria. 3.5/5
 * 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:Attempt to WP:AGF, address the nominator's concerns, and explain why the article is a valid one.
 * Yep. Have faith that the Wikipedia community is intelligent, and can sort it all out.  It should be closed per WP:SNOW soon.  5/5
 * 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:Argh, I hate templates :D I'm guessing it would say Thanks again!, linking to Lorem Ipsum, and with the message Thanks for helping with Lorem Ipsum! It's a great help. -sig here-
 * What it would actually say is "Thanks for helping with that article! It's a great help.  Thanks again!  -sig here-  "  I understand, templates are confusing. You were close, however. 4.5/5
 * 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:Tag the article under CSD G12, referencing the copyvio'd textbook.
 * While that is acceptable, if you can remove all of the copyrighted material while saving a stub summary (assuming it is notable), this is preferable. 4/5

43/50


 * Total:   137.5/150 (92%)
 * Comments: You have a solid grasp of the encyclopedia, but I do have one suggestion: based on what I've seen from you, you have a tendency to spend a little too much time at ANI. Remember, ANI is the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. Try not to spend a whole lot of time there, commenting at least. Read the disputes for sure, just don't comment unless you have something important to add to the conversation. Other than that, congratulations on passing this streamlined adoption course! Your adopter,  Go   Phightins  !  18:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: My adoption assistant, User:Tazerdadog, assisted me in the grading of this exam.

Questions, Comments, Excuses, Thoughts, etc.
Post any of the aforementioned types of queries in this section.
 * I hope that the "cleanup" bit doesn't have to involve articles explicitly mentioned there, as there aren't really any I feel I can do, due to either a lack of knowledge on the subject, or an inability to access sources. That said, if I don't have to get them from there, I'll go and find some motor-racing driver articles that are tagged for needing work (or similar.) Luke no 94  (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can cleanup any article that has a maintenance tag on it. Go   Phightins  !  19:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Might as well thank you both here for your help. I'm not surprised that the NPP was what gave me the biggest trouble, as it's not an area I'm experienced in. I'll try and be more careful in future :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)