User:Rosguill/CollectiveSolidarity NPPSCHOOL

Hello, welcome to your New Page Patrol School page! Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your NPP School page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working).

Make sure you read through Notability as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

This page will be built up over your time in the School, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
 * How to use this page

If both the instructor and student make completing the course curriculum a top priority, it will generally take around a month to go through the entirety of the curriculum. This pace is not required or necessarily expected, but rather is provided in order to give participants an idea of what to expect. It is also worth stressing that NPP's focus is on "quality, not quantity" so there should not be a rush to complete assignments.

Notability
 PART 1 

Questions
In your own words, how is notability defined on Wikipedia? It is a criterion under which a topic can be determined suitable enough to be covered on Wikipedia.
 * Question 1
 * Notability can be determined by finding that a topic has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (the GNG). This is especially true of sensitive subjects such as BLPs. However, there are also a number of subject-specific notability criteria that help clarify if a separate article should be written about a given subject. If a topic meets the GNG and/or a SNG, it usually is appropriate to have as an article.

Would step by step instructions on "How to change a car tire" be considered a notable topic in Wikipedia? Why or why not?
 * Question 2
 * WP:NOTHOWTO

What are the differences between the WP:GNG and the subject-specific notability guidelines? How do we determine which one to use when patrolling an article?
 * Question 3
 * The subject-specific notability guidelines provide relevant information to clarify if a topic in a specific subject is likely notable (If the GNG is not met), while the GNG is a guideline that applies to notability in all articles. In short, the SNGs are simply amendments and explanations that act as subject-specific extensions of the universal GNG. If a patroller finds that an article does not meet the GNG, they should then check for a relevant SNG. If the SNG is met, the reviewer should assume that the topic will be notable and will have reliable sources somewhere. They should then apply maintenance tags if applicable (EX: refimprove).

Subject-specific notability guidelines
1. Please categorize the subject-specific notability guidelines (listed at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines) into the following three categories

Primarily additional criteria that are likely to indicate notability
 * NPEOPLE
 * NSPORTS
 * NACADEMICS
 * NBOOKS
 * NASTRONOMY
 * NGEO
 * NMUSIC

Primarily additional considerations that define or restrict the nature of coverage or sources required
 * NCOMPANY
 * NEVENT

Even mix of the previous two categories
 * NNUM
 * NFILM
 * NWEB



2. Virtually all SNGs that provide additional notability criteria specify that these criteria may indicate that the subject meets notability guidelines. How would you interpret this caveat as a new page reviewer?
 * If a page meets a SNG but not GNG, it is highly possible that there are enough reliable sources that support notability. As such, I should look for additional coverage online from reliable sources, then tag for additional citations if there is/is not enough material. However, if the meeting of SNG is borderline (I.e. the subject won an obscure award and there is insignificant/no further coverage online), I may open an AfD and explain how the subject is not notable. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work. Since you seem to have notability principles down pat, let's skip ahead to source evaluation. signed,Rosguill talk 02:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Evaluating sources
Give an example of a source that is reliable but not independent of a subject, and explain why.
 * Question 11
 * A commonly used source in my specialized area (Video Games) is PlayStation Blog (Although it is technically not a blog). It is considered reliable because it provides accurate information on the technical aspects of its subject, the PlayStation, but it is nonetheless owned by the PlayStation's manufacturer, Sony. Because of the Blog's closeness to its covered subject, it is usually not appropriate to use it as the sole basis for a PlayStation product article.

Give an example of a source that is independent but not reliable and explain why. Describe the steps you should take when assessing whether an unfamiliar source is reliable.
 * Question 12
 * Freelance writers at Comic Book Resources are considered usually unreliable because they are paid to cover topics that they have little to no experience with, and are given no editorial oversight. They are independent because they typically come with an outsider perspective on a subject, but the lack of editorial oversight causes them to sometimes publish inaccuracies.
 * Question 13
 * Question 13
 * First, I check if the source contains the word "Blog", because Blogs are self-published and considered largely unacceptable as sources. User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter checks the text usually for the word, but I double-check the website just in case. After that, I look up the source online to see if any "sources of record" (I.e. Reliable Newspapers/Magazines/occasionally books) mention it as a source for their content. Finally, I check the unfamiliar source's other content (I.e. Is the source making extraordinary claims? Is their other content sensationalist?) and come to a conclusion based upon the plausibility and apparent editorial oversight of their content. If all else fails, I may ask about it at the WP:RSN if the source keeps appearing while I am patrolling. Otherwise, I will leave it up to someone else.

Evaluating sources in the wild
Without consulting any existing Wikipedia consensuses, such as those listed at WP:RSP, WP:NPPSG or WP:RSN, assess whether the following sources are reliable. You may refer to Wikipedia articles for the publications if they exist. Be specific as to how and why you came to your conclusions. Sources are often reliable for some content and unreliable for other content: identify what sorts of articles may have reliable and unreliable coverage from a given source, and consider using examples from their website to illustrate your points. Feel free to offer topic-scoped assessments such as "likely reliable for claims related to pop culture" or "reliable for non-political subject matter". For sources in languages that you can't read, please use Google Translate to evaluate the source to the best of your ability.


 * 14 The Moscow Times
 * Looks generally reliable. The publication's Chief editors mostly have articles. One of them appears to be working for the New York Times, a newspaper of record. The site also appears to report from some other sources that I know are generally reliable, such as Agence France-Presse. I searched around to see if other sources used it, and I found that the generally reliable Washington Post used it.


 * 15 USA Today
 * Very prominent Newspaper in the U.S. It appears as though some of its journalists are also notable enough for articles, and it looks to generally have editorial oversight. I initially thought to not use the paper in political contexts, considering that its Wikipedia article mentions that its coverage often relies upon its opinion section. However, there are some politics-centered articles written by professional journalists, and I would make sure to check those ones are writing the articles and not the opinionated commentators.


 * 16 The Hindu
 * I actually came across this one a lot while patrolling. It is another newspaper of record similar to The Times of India, though I have noticed that sometimes its articles do not have in-depth coverage of its subjects. I'd say generally reliable, though SIGCOV is a bit shaky, and needs evaluation.

Once again, excellent work. signed,Rosguill talk 14:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Article titles
Please read WP:TITLE and answer the questions below

'''1. Article name "Hannibal Barca" - Does the article name need to be change? and Why? (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)'''

Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian general and statesman who is widely considered one of the greatest military commanders in history. His father, Hamilcar Barca, was a leading Carthaginian commander during the First Punic War (264–241 BC).

Answer: I believe the title should be changed to simply Hannibal, because I found more sources referring to him as simply "Hannibal" rather than "Hannibal Barca". Also, I believe he is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC considering that he has long-term significance as one of Rome's greatest enemies, getting more page views than most all of the other Hannibals listed at Hannibal (given name). The only close contender is Hannibal Lecter, but he is a relatively popular recent character, possibly inflating his page views because of WP:RECENTISM Also, there are more sources written on Hannibal Barca than Hannibal Lecter.

--

'''2. Article name "Magic Johnson". Does the article name need to be change? and Why?(please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)'''

Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is an American retired professional basketball player and former president of basketball operations of the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He played point guard for the Lakers for 13 seasons.

Answer:The title should stay the same. A quick google search yielded 10 million results for Magic Johnson, 13,000 results for Earvin Johnson Jr., and 130,000 results for Earvin Johnson. It is clear that Magic Johnson is the WP:COMMONNAME, and all of the cited sources primarily call him Magic Johnson as well.

Biographies of living persons
Please read WP:BLP and answer the questions below.

'''3. Please explain if the content of the below text is acceptable for inclusion and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)'''

Conor Anthony McGregor (born 14 July 1988) is an Irish professional mixed martial artist and boxer. His is a former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) featherweight and lightweight champion.

On 15 August 2019, TMZ Sports published a video that appeared to show McGregor punching a man at The Marble Arch Pub in Dublin. The incident happened on 6 April and was originally reported by Irish media, although without the video that showed the attack. Irish police stated in April that they had opened an investigation. McGregor was charged with assault and first appeared in court on 11 October 2019.

In April 2019, McGregor is the father of Terri Murray's son, Clodagh. Murray bedded McGregor in 2017 at his hotel after the Aintree Grand National just four weeks bofore McGregor's girlfriend Dee Devlin gave birth to their son.

Answer: Remove RT because it is an unreliable source. The first source seems a bit sensationalist, so I'd try to find one that is more acceptable. Middle paragraph appears to be fine, as the sources say that he was charged but don't overtly suggest that he committed a crime. He is also a public person, and there are many sources that talk about the charges. Last paragraph should be removed as a BLP violation, since the reliable sources I found only that say that Murray merely alleged that McGregor was the father of her son, with the fact eventually being disproved.



--

'''4. Please explain if the content of the below text is acceptable for inclusion and why. (please explain based on Wikipedia guidelines and name/link the guidelines in your answer)'''

Diana Nyad (née Sneed; born August 22, 1949) is an American author, journalist, motivational speaker, and long-distance swimmer who lives in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. and could be contacted at +0-202-456-6213. Nyad gained national attention in 1975 when she swam around Manhattan (28 mi) and in 1979 when she swam from North Bimini, The Bahamas, to Juno Beach, Florida (102 mi). In 2013, on her fifth attempt and at age 64, she became the first person confirmed to swim from Cuba to Florida without the aid of a shark cage, swimming from Havana to Key West (110 mi).

Answer: Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, the article should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for Nyad. The rest of the information is mostly good, except I would clarify that she swam around Manhattan in under eight hours.

@Rosguill. Finished up here CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality
For the following excerpt, identify if there is any need for neutrality edits and if so, draft a corrected version of the paragraph.

6.

On 20 January 2022, a group of Oromia police officers fired at Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo followers while the congregants transporting Ark of the Covenant to Woybela Mariam Church during feast day of Saint Michael in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, killing three people from direct gunshot, and injured ten other people.

Event
The Oromia police began assaulting the congregants of Orthodox Tewahedo while they transporting the Ark of the Covenant to Woybela Mariam Church during the feast day of Saint Michael. They threw tear gas to the children's choir to stop ritual progression. The mayhem was motivated when they saw the flag of Ethiopia shirt worn by the congregants at the celebration and they start to extort them. Three people were killed by the police brutality—both were from direct gunshot—at Alert Hospital in Addis Ababa while ten people were critically injured.

Response
The event stirred up criticism directed to Abiy Ahmed's government, who was blamed for not quickly responded to the action. Abune Melke Tsadek, Archbishop of Addis Ababa, had decision to keep the Ark of the Covenant to Keraneyo Medhanealem Church. Oromo Liberation Front and Oromo Liberation Army jointly accused for alleged massacre. In aftermath, the Ethiopian Orthodox followers began mobilizing to resume the solemn progression.

Event
After a confrontation with protestors carrying Ethiopian flags, Oromia police opened fire on the congregants as they were transporting the tabot to Woybela Mariam Church. They threw tear gas to the children's choir to stop ritual progression. Three people were killed by the gunfire, while ten were critically injured.

Response
The event stirred up criticism against Abiy Ahmed's government, who was blamed for not quickly responding to the action. Abune Melke Tsadek, Archbishop of Addis Ababa, decided to keep the Ark of the Covenant in Keraneyo Medhanealem Church. The Ethiopian Orthodox followers later began mobilizing to resume the progression. @Rosguill done here too. &ddagger; Night Watch &omega;    (talk)   02:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Good work, although when working on such an article for real, don't forget to edit the infobox as well. This exercise is actually a copy of a real article I came across not too long ago; you can find the neutral fix at Woybela Mariam Church incident (the differences from your answer here are trivial stylistic changes, but do note the infobox cleanup). signed,Rosguill talk 17:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No original research
Please read WP:OR and WP:NOT and answer the questions below

13. In your own words, why is Wikipedia not a platform for publishing original research?

Answer: Wikipedia is based upon reliable, independent sources that have been vetted for accuracy by its editors. If original research has been inserted into an article, there is no way to prove that the content is factually accurate, not just the opinion of the writer, or a synthesis of material that may end up being a fringe viewpoint of something. NOR is intertwined with other policies such as verifiability and NPOV, and adding original thought may also place undue weight towards a certain author's perception of a topic.

14.  In your own words, please provide one example with explanation when it is appropriate to insert an original content or synthesis in an article.

Answer: Images are not considered original research as long as they do not introduce or illustrate new viewpoints or arguments that are unpublished. For example, User:Example inserts File:Quality not quantity.png. into an article that compares Quality and Quantity. Since "Quality not quantity" is a common argument supported by at least some sources, it is not original research. However, if User:Example was to insert an image called File:Polyester cancer symptoms.jpg into the article "Causes of Cancer" and it supported the unpublished argument that polyester causes cancer, then that image (and content) would be forbidden.

15. See this video and write an article paragraph that properly presents claims supported by the source. Assume that Alsuleiman's opinions are DUE for inclusion as part of this response.'''

Answer: Alsuleiman said in response to a question that Islam demands the clothes of both men and women be baggy, non-see-through, and non-colorful, declaring that men and women could not wear jeans or trousers, because they did not fit those conditions.

Additional OR practice
For each of the following, state whether the prompt is an example of original research, as well as your reasoning

1. An editor writes a new article about an album. The entirety of the "Reception" section is just "According to Pitchfork" followed by a direct quote from a review in ''Pitchfork.
 * That is not original research because the content is attributed to a reliable source.

2. Source A in an article about Green Wugs states that 70% of green wugs have a checkerboard pattern in their feathers. Source B states that green wugs with checkerboard patterns have a high incidence of sickle cell anemia. An editor writes in the article 70% of green wugs have checkerboard patterns in their feathers and sickle cell anemia and cites both sources
 * That is an incorrect synthesis because the source says that green wugs have a high chance of sickle cell anemia, not that 70% of the green wugs have anemia. Otherwise, it is nonetheless a synthesis that is OR.

3. Source A in an article about Green Wugs states that 70% of green wugs have a checkerboard pattern in their feathers. Source B states that all green wugs with checkerboard patterns have sickle cell anemia. An editor writes in the article 70% of green wugs have checkerboard patterns in their feathers and sickle cell anemia and cites both sources
 * Still a synthesis that reaches a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources. Per WP:OR

4. In an article about Human rights in South Asia by country, almost all of the sources specifically analyze one country at a time. An editor writes a lead that summarizes the information in the article, including phrases such as roughly half of the countries in South Asia allow for the use of the death penalty and Most countries in South Asia developed their modern legal codes based off of British colonial law.
 * Not OR because it is drawing proper conclusions from the sources, not synthesizing new material. If say roughly 4 sources out of 8 countries in South Asia say that they allow for the usage of the death penalty, then that would be roughly half. I believe WP:CALC is the applicable policy.
 * ✅, I would invoke WP:LEAD rather than WP:CALC, but correct nonetheless. signed,Rosguill talk 19:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

5. In a review for a song, the editor includes an analysis of the song's lyrics and their meanings that are cited to Genius (website)
 * Clarification needed: Is the analysis from the editor or the site itself? If it’s from the site, that is not OR, but if it is from the editor with a citation to Genius, then that would be OR.
 * ✅, Genius is a lyrics-hosting site (although it does often include crowdsourced analysis, and if the analysis was described there then you're right that it would no longer be an OR issue, although it would be an unreliable-source issue).

6. In an article titled International reactions to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories, an editor creates a map based on the information in the article where countries are colored in based on their public stances on the issue. These stances are individually supported by citations in the article's text, but no map is cited.
 * Since the map is probably not going to include original ideas or arguments, I believe it falls under not OR because of WP:IMAGEOR

7. In an article about a company, Source A says that in 2018, the company made $100k in revenue selling Product X. Source B says that in 2018, the company made $200k selling Product Y. An editor writes in the article In 2018, the company made $300k in revenue from selling products X and Y.


 * Source B only said that it made 200k selling Product Y, not 200k in revenue. Thus, counting the 200k in revenue would be a synthesis with the first 100k in revenue, which would be OR.

8. In an article about the Climate of South America, a source provides measurements in Celsius. An editor converts the measurements to Fahrenheit in the article.

@Rosguill done here. &ddagger; Night Watch &omega;    (talk)   19:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A conversion is fine, per CALC.
 * Great work once more. signed,Rosguill talk 19:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Filtering - Criteria for speedy deletion
 PART 2 


 * We have looked at the requirements needed for a page to meet notability guidelines, content policies and the types of sources needed to merit a page in Wikipedia in Part 1 (Assignment 1, 2 & 3). In assignment 4, we look at what type of articles need to be filtered out from our system when reviewing a page. There are many criteria of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Here we discuss (1) General criteria (G1-G14),  (2) Article criteria (A1-A11) and R2.


 * Please do the following


 * 1) Please set up your CSD log by installing MYCSD so that I can review your CSD nominations. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Bypass your cache.
 * 2) Bookmark Earwig's Copyvio Detector in your computer.
 * 3) Install CV-revdel. After saving, you may have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Bypass your cache.

General criteria

 * 1. Please review (G1-G14) at General and answer the following questions in your own words. When providing examples, be specific

Article and redirect criteria

 * 1. Please review A1-A11, R2, and R3 criteria at WP:CSD and answer the following questions in your own words. When providing examples, be specific.

done here  &ddagger; Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   20:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Just a little nudge from me  &ddagger; The Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   17:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Scenarios
For the following examples, identify which CSD criteria apply, if any.


 * Scenario 1

A user with the username "BobSucks" creates an article called "John Smith" that contains solely the following text: John Smith is the worst elementary school teacher on the planet.
 * Tag G10 as attack page and report BobSucks to UAA because it matches "Sucks" on the blacklist and is an WP:ATTACKNAME

✅


 * Scenario 2

A user with the username "GoodTimesLLC" creates a user page with the following text Good Times LLC is an organization dedicated to helping your children get the highest quality education at an affordable price. Visit our website at goodtimes.info and contact us at 123-456-7890.
 * Tag G11 as obvious spam and report user to UAA for having a promotional username.

✅


 * Scenario 3

A user creates an article titled "Edward Gordon" with the following text: Edward Gordon (born July 1998) is an aspiring American actor and songwriter. So far, he has starred in many school plays and has published two albums on SoundCloud. He has over 500 subscribers on YouTube.
 * Tag A7 because he lacks a credible claim of significance. Plenty of people star in school plays, publish albums, and have subscribers on YouTube. However, I'll still check ahead of time to see if there is any credible information online to warrant significance.

✅


 * Scenario 4

A user creates an article titled "Bazz Ward" with the following content: Bazz Ward was a Hall of Fame roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz.
 * Tag for A3 because it is a chat-like comment. I initially considered tagging it for A1, but its title provides enough material for someone to possibly search up material on the web. Nevertheless, A3 still applies.

✅


 * Scenario 5

A user creates an article titled Marks v. Shoup with the following content: Under the law of Oregon which was in force in Alaska when the seizure and levy of the plaintiff's goods were made by the defendant as marshal of Alaska under a writ of attachment, that officer could not, by virtue of his writ, lawfully take the property from the possession of a third person, in whose possession he found it.
 * No CSD criteria apples here. Marks v. Shoup brings up plenty of information on a google search, and is plausibly notable as a law. I'd draftify that article if it doesn't have citations added or isn't cleaned up after an hour or two.

✅


 * Scenario 6

A user creates an article, but you can't understand any of it because it's in a foreign language."Check to see if it is on a foreign language Wikipedia. If it is a blatant copy (or close to one) of a foreign language Wikipedia article, it should be tagged with A2. If it is not, it should be tagged with Template:Not English and list it at WP:PNT" ✅


 * Scenario 7

A user creates an article, but shortly after creating it, the same user blanks the article by removing all of its content.
 * Delete per G7 as a blanking can be considered an author-requested deletion.

✅

A user creates an article which is an identical copy of another article on Wikipedia.
 * Scenario 8
 * If there is no relevant page history and it was recently created, then A10 should apply,

✅


 * Scenario 9

A user with the name "WikiRockers" creates the following article Phabricators are Fabulous is the debut single of an exciting new group called the WikiRockers.

Delete per A9 because the author does not have an article and there is no credible claim of significance for the song, ✅


 * Scenario 10

A user creates an article and 5 minutes after it was created the article only has a single category with no other text.
 * I'll wait 5-10 more minutes and then tag for A3 because it has no content.

✅ done here too  &ddagger; Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   21:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest and paid editors

 * Please read WP:NPPCOI, WP:COI and WP:PAID and answer the following question

Answer: The COI/PAID editor has either made a declaration about their conflict or payment in their userpage, through an edit summary, or on an article talk page. Undisclosed COI and PAID editors often have a number of possible signs surrounding them that indicate an external relationship. This includes "Articles That Look Too Good To Be True", pages created by a very new user that are properly sourced and formatted, especially in regards to existing corporations. Yes, there are very few who look up how to write a proper article before starting, but if the creator appears to have some sort of other motive for writing the article, then it might be a COI/PAID. Other signs include refs that link straight to the company (Business information, contact us sections etc.), text that appears to come from a news article or press release, other articles by the creator created in very few edits, or several articles that are clearly closely related to each other either professionally or financially.
 * 11. How do we spot a COI/PAID editor?
 * ✅, another common tell is the professional-looking headshot for the infobox, especially if uploaded as the editors' own work. signed,Rosguill talk 21:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer: COI editing is strongly discouraged, but not prohibited. However, COI behaviors typically cause other problematic behaviors such as copyright violations, so I'll first check for a CV with Earwig's. Theres also the chance that the article was recreated by a blocked or banned COI editor, so I might also have to use a G4 or open an SPI. I will always use the COI warning template to alert the editor if they have not disclosed their COI, and then tag the article appropriately with advertising, COI tags, or possibly a G11/A7 if it is blatant advertising/promotion. In addition, I may report the creator to UAA if they have a promotional username such as a WP:CORPNAME.
 * 12. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a COI editor?
 * G4 is probably not going to apply, since that would only affect content deleted at AfD--a G5 could potentially be appropriate if the editor is in fact the sock of a banned editor. Otherwise this is an adequate answer. signed,Rosguill talk 21:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Answer: Since disclosure requirements are ignored by most paid editors (Even when warned), I can mostly take immediate action by deleting an article via G11/A7 if the topic is clearly blatant advertising or lacks a CCS, or can report to UAA if the creator has a promotional username. I can also draftify the article and require the creator to submit it through AFC, but only if they clearly appear to have a large COI or paid relationship with the subject.
 * 13. What should you do when you review an NPP article and notice the creator is a paid editor?
 * I wouldn't presuppose that paid editors are going to ignore warnings, in fact as far as warnings are concerned, I'd say that there's three types of paid editors:
 * Low tier paid editors working through Upwork or another crowdsourcing platform, who are essentially human spambots. Many times they will lack even basic English skills; this kind of paid editor is the kind that does not respond to warnings.
 * Mid tier paid editors who work as staff for a specific individual or institution: they are likely to have near-zero familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and culture and will attempt to use customer-service/PR bluster techniques to get what they want, not knowing that that's perhaps one of the fastest ways to get the community to come after you. These editors are likely to respond to warnings, if not necessarily in the desired way, and are likely to fight what they perceive to be bias and gatekeeping against their client if they don't receive clear communication from you as to what the expectations are. The good news is that you can often trick this kind of paid editor into disclosing their affiliations, as they will be eager to demonstrate that they are an *authorized* voice on behalf of their client.
 * The most savvy paid editors are the ones who do this for a living, and do it enough to have actually learned how our community works and how to best exploit our content curation processes.


 * While type 1 editors are going to treat warnings like water off of a duck's back, making sure you've followed the appropriate warning processes is very important when dealing with type 2 and 3, as otherwise such editors could claim "admin abuse" in the absence of a diligent paper trail. signed,Rosguill talk 21:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Additional COI practice
For each of the following prompts, identify how likely it is that the described behavior is COI or PAID editing (not COI/unlikely/possible/likely/very likely), as well as what measures would be appropriate to take (both in terms of messages sent to the involved editors and whether to approve/delete/draftify/tag the article). Don't assume any information about the scenarios beyond what is written: if you feel like you would need additional information to provide a proper answer, describe the various outcomes you would consider based on additional hypothetical evidence.


 * 1 An editor makes 10 edits to a variety of articles, then creates an article about an obscure businessperson in a single edit, and does not make any additional edits for 3 months. The article appears to meet notability guidelines.
 * Well there is clearly something very fishy about this. As soon as the creator does the bare minimum to obtain Autoconfirmed, they publish an article in a single edit regarding a certain businessperson that immediately meets notability guidelines.I'd say the behavior would be considered "very likely" COI. I'd personally warn the editor with a template, but also tag the page for COI in the case that the creator does not return.
 * ✅, that's a good approach. If the case for notability is weaker, draftification is a good choice, despite the general recommendation of not using draftify for articles older than 90 days. signed,Rosguill talk 21:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 2 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics makes a new article in a small amount of edits about a new TV show. The article is not neutrally written. Since having finished the article, the editor has continued to make a handful of contributions to other articles.
 * I would be very surprised to see a COI editor putting in the time to make hundreds of edits to a variety of topics, then continue contributing to other topics unrelated to the possible COI (The TV Show) I'd assume the benefit of the doubt and warn the contributor about NPOV concerns/Peacock/Weasel words, and then tag the article for NPOV. If anything else suspicious comes up, I might formally warn the user about a COI/PAID. Probably an "unlikely" COI
 * ✅, this case describes an editor who is most likely a fan of the show. A more general neutrality warning would be more appropriate than a COI warning here. signed,Rosguill talk 21:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Done here too  &ddagger; The Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   20:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 3 An editor makes 10 edits to articles about locations in Georgia, then creates a meticulously sourced article about a species of tree native to Georgia in a single 50,000 byte edit. They have not made any additional edits since then.
 * It would be extremely unlikely for an editor to have a COI/PAID relationship with a tree. My guess is that this is a SPA that wanted to write an article about a tree that they found, looked up how to write an article, then did the work necessary to gain autoconfirmed in order to publish it. No warning required I this case.


 * 4 An editor with the username "ApuOcalanPKKForever" creates a biography about a Turkish dissident. The article is not neutrally written.
 * Appears to be not enough evidence to warrant a COI. I'd say this is more of an advocacy or NPOV issue and warn the creator and tag the article appropriately.


 * 5 A new editor with the username "BillieFan214" writes a non-neutral article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it
 * Judging by the username, this is probably most likely a fan rather than a COI/paid advocate. Unless additional evidence is provided, I'd just tag the article with NPOV and warn the editor.


 * 6 A new editor with the username "BEOfficial" writes an article about an upcoming Billie Eilish album. They have not made any edits to other articles since completing it.
 * This is more possible to be a COI, as it appears as though this account is used by someone working with Billie Eilish. I'd warn for COI and ask to disclose payment, and then tag the article for COI and NPOV/Any/Advertising other tags if applicable


 * 7 Over the course of 5 years, an editor writes several articles about a small group of academics and their business ventures. The articles are well-sourced and neutrally written. You've come across their most recent creation, which appears to be notable. Every single article that they've edited in the past five years appears to be somehow related to this group of academics
 * This is clearly a SPA that has a COI, most likely someone personally affiliated with this group of academics. Because of the account's niche interests, they almost certainly have a COI. I'd warn the editor and tag their articles appropriately, but probably no other tags because the articles are well sourced and written.


 * 8 An editor with several hundred edits to a variety of topics named "Ismail Oyo" makes a new article about a notable businessperson from Nigeria, and claims the photo in the infobox as their own work.
 * Possible COI. If the headshot of a person (especially a businessperson) appears professional and is listed as the article creator's own work, it is a plausible COI. Tag and warn the creator for COI/PAID.
 * , while glossy professional headshots are strong evidence of a paid connection, it is very common for novice editors to accidentally and inappropriately claim photos as their own work because it seems like the simplest response. signed,Rosguill talk 23:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 9 An editor with 50 edits to a variety of topics is named "StacyRichardson". Included among these edits are the creation of two new articles about businesspeople from Russia. You are reviewing the most recent article, and it does not appear to be notable, although it is neutrally written.
 * Strange that a person writing about businesspeople from Russia would have an English username that appears to be a plausible real name. I predict that the editor is possibly a paid consultant that is trying to appear as a legitimate editor in order to publish articles about people they are affiliated with. I'd ask for payment disclosure and tag.


 * 10 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with less than 50 edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked for sockpuppeting. The subject appears notable
 * Very likely sockpuppetry due to the editor becoming involved in a whole different namespace in less than 50 edits, as well as editing a draft with heavy levels of block evasion. I'd look for additional evidence and report to SPI, but I would't say COI unless there is additional information such as non-neutral language or heavy reliance on affiliated sources.


 * 11 An article is moved from draftspace by an AfC reviewer with several thousand edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by accounts blocked as NOTHERE. The subject does not appear to meet GNG.
 * I doubt this is a case of goodhand-badhand or else the good hand AfC reviewer would have been more subtle. The best answer I can think of is that this was a mistake, and I'll talk to the reviewer on their talk page. But I'll keep an open eye in the case that more evidence of sockpuppetry/COI reveals itself.


 * 12 An article is moved from draftspace by an editor with a few hundred edits. Previously, the article had only been edited by an account that has been blocked for violating CIVIL. The subject is a borderline case for notability.
 * I don't think there is any grounds for COI or sockpuppetry. Most likely the moving editor just had an interest in the draft and by happenstance moved an article where the creator was just rashly uncivil. However, this borderline case for notability would mean that I would patrol and tag the article as normal, and then leave a message for the reviewer with my concerns

Done here  &ddagger; The Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   22:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Filtering - Deletion policy & other alternatives
In assignment 4, we look at articles which meetWP:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) whereby the the articles are deleted soon after nomination. In Assignment 5, we discuss the what actions should be taken for those articles that do not fit under the CSD criteria but do not meet relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia.

Please read WP:PROD,  WP:BLPPROD, WP:MERGE, WP:DRAFTIFY, WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:REDIR, WP:AFD and answer the following questions. (Provide links and hisdiff as needed.)

Answer: An article should only be prodded if there is a valid (usually policy-based) reason for deletion that does not meet CSD (EX: Fails a subject notability guideline and the GNG), and the deletion is expected to be uncontroversial and not meet any opposition. This is in order to remove pages that will almost certainly not survive an AfD discussion, and prevent AfD from overflowing with articles that more likely than not will be deleted.
 * 1. Under what circumstances do we propose deletion (PROD) a page and why do we do that?



Answer: When a PROD is considered, the page should be checked for alternatives to deletion (If the deletion nomination may be controversial, it should be listed at AfD or otherwise speedier if it clearly meets a CSD). It should also be reviewed for recent vandalism, and if it has been previously deleted/tagged by a PROD or speedied, or undeleted, and not discussed at AfD.
 * 2. What should we do before we PROD a page? And what should be considered during a nomination?


 * , all of these suggestions are correct, but you're missing the other critical step of doing a thorough WP:BEFORE search, which is particularly important as it is quite possible that the only person to look at a PROD after it is placed will be an administrator preparing to delete the page.

Answer: First, I should check to see if the article has no sources whatsoever (including in the history of the page), and look to see if there are any reliable sources online. If there are readily apparent sources in the article and online after a thorough search, I should then consult notability guidelines (Such as WP:NBLP or WP:NAUTHOR and then CSD guidelines. If it meets a CSD guideline (Such as G10), then it should be deleted using that method. But if the figure has no sources online and in the article and meets a SNG by a hair (So that it is not an A7), then I'll tag for a BLPPROD.
 * 3. What is the criteria when nominating a BLPPROD? If we choose not to BLPPROD a page what are the alternatives? (give three examples with explanations)



Answer: The steps can be seen at WP:BEFORE and the reasons at WP:DEL-REASON. In summary, we can nominate an article at AfD is the article fails to have reliable independent sources with SIGCOV (GNG) and does not meet a SNG, even after a thorough search. The article also must not be nominated if it can alternatively be PRODDED for uncontroversial deletion or CSDed. Also, a BEFORE check for sources must be done, and the content also considered for merging or draftification if possible.
 * 4. In what circumstances can we nominate an AFD and what step should be done prior such action.


 * ✅, AfD would also be appropriate for WP:PAGEDECIDE deletion rationale, but these cases are relatively rare. signed,Rosguill talk 18:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer: The Prods can last up to 7 days unless they are objected to, and an AfD can last 7 days or longer (+7 days for every relisting).
 * 5 How long do PROD, BLPPROD and AFD last before it is deleted or decline?



Answer: I'd prefer to use AfD, but a CSD may also apply, such as an A7 or G10.
 * 6. Suppose a page has been previously BLPROD and a source was provided. If you still think that article should be deleted, what can you do?

Answer: If the content is useful but doesn't have enough information for its own article. For example, say there is a newly created article about a facility of a school that already has its own article, but the facility itself article lacks SIGCOV. The content of the facility article can be merged to the school article.
 * 7. What are the reason to WP:Merge a page to another page?



Answer: 1. When the topic of the article is non-notable, but is a member of an existing group and is a likely search term (I.e. GeorgeNotFound of the Dream SMP) 2. subtopics that lack notability and could be included in the main article 3. creative works that are not notable but are made by a notable subject 4. articles that have been split from others but do not meet the criteria for size/content splitting. 5. an article that is basically the same subject of another but with different wording 6. an article that is a cut-and-paste move of an existing page 7. an article about a non-notable topic created out of a redirect 8. an article nominated at and and closed as redirect but was recreated. (Can't think of any others)
 * 8. List 10 reasons we may WP:REDIR instead of deleting.


 * ✅, while you could squeeze out a few more subcases to make it to 10 (e.g. copyvio creation at a prior redirect title; unsuitable article creation where the term is coincidentally a valid redirect for an unrelated topic), but you've hit the main cases. signed,Rosguill talk 18:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer: I can search through Google Books, the WP LIBARY, and Google Scholar (Or just plain Google) for most academic, book, and place articles, but material in the arts may require other methods. I'm involved a lot in video games, so I can use the WP:VG/SE to quickly look for video game sources, but I could also look at the entertainment section of Google News for sports and other topics of popular interest. For foreign topics, I could also search for an equivalent article on another wiki, or search up the foreign name of the topic on Google if the article provides one. To translate materials that I cannot read, I can use Google Translate.
 * 9. Please list the ways that you should search for sources in preparation for a PROD or AfD nomination, including steps which may only be relevant for certain subjects. How does this list change for subjects which are likely to have coverage in languages that you cannot read?



Answer: When the article is showing plausible notability (I.e. good sourcing online), but has other issues such as NPOV/BLP and would cause trouble if it was moved to mainspace. It also applies to pages published by an editor that has a COI with a topic.
 * 10. When can an article be moved to draft space?
 * ✅, note that there's also an informal convention that articles older than a few months are not suitable cases for draftification unless done in response to UPE. signed,Rosguill talk 18:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

done here too. &ddagger; The Night Watch &omega;    (talk)   14:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's epistemology and deletion discussions
Answer: Policies are rules that have been published through wide community consensus, and have practically no exceptions and must be followed in virtually all circumstances (There is IAR but that's another can of worms). Guidelines are another set of rules agreed upon by consensus, but they are a bit looser and can have some exceptions in extraordinary cases. Essays are generally opinions expressed by certain editors, and are not rules at all, although some very popular essays may de facto act as unspoken etiquette.
 * 1. In your own words, describe the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. Also explain briefly how references to each of these may be used in deletion discussions

Answer: These essays are not SNGs, but are good tools for helping determine whether an article could be notable or not. Thus, they should not be mentioned in AfD discussions as policy, but could help you get a good grasp whether the subject is possibly notable.
 * 2. Some WikiProjects have published essays on notability for topics related to their project, such as WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. As a new page reviewer, how should you use such essays?

Answer: You are primarily evaluating the article's subject and whether it is notable or not, and the evaluation of the article itself comes next.
 * 3. When evaluating notability, are you primarily evaluating the article, or the article's subject?

Answer: Alright, my interpretation is that IAR is best used with content situations to avoid BURO, and most other stuff should generally not have IAR. However, I do realize that we do not always have to be strict bureaucratic system, and that sometimes we can be lenient with SNGs and GNGs when the subject of an article clearly is informative and decently written, even if it borderline meets notability. If the article is mostly good and only struggles a little with the sourcing, I can give it the benefit of the doubt
 * 4. What is your interpretation of the role of WP:BURO and WP:IAR in new page patrol and deletion discussions?

Tagging
In this assignment we look at tagging pages for problems. There any many tags available in Wikipedia and we will look at some of them here.


 * Please enable HotCat in your "Wikipedia references" - see How to enable/disable HotCat. The tool lists and proposes existing categories for auto-completion.
 * Please install StubSorter user script. The script is for adding/removing stub tags.
 * Please install Rater user script. The scripts provides a dialog interface to add, remove, or modify WikiProject banners, including class and importance assessment. Accessible from either the page itself or its talk page. after saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes - see instruction at Bypass your cache.
 * Please enable User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper gadget for editing, adding, and importing short descriptions.

Tagging in the article
Please read WP:TAGGING and answer the questions below. Please provide explanations in your own words and provide hist diff when applicable.


 * 1. Why do we place tags on the article?

To alert other editors of problems with an article to encourage them to be fixed.
 * , it's also to alert readers, and to add articles to work backlogs.


 * 2. What does "drive by tagging" mean?

When an article is tagged for non-obvious problems without identifying the problem


 * 3. List 8 common tagging behaviors that should be avoided in an article

Tagging for problems that can be easily fixed, drive-by tagging, the insertion of tags that are too similar, tagging only the biggest problems, tagging for every small problem, tagging if you have a COI, tagging overtly vague problems, tagging a redundant amount of times.
 * , I would disagree with tagging only the biggest problems, although the rest are correct. Often, issues that could be tagged would not be relevant to address until after more pressing issues have been. For example, while an article with accuracy or OR issues could in principle also benefit from copyediting, it would not be an effective use of our energy to copyedit before the underlying issues are addressed because they will likely require a significant rewrite of the article anyway. Another example would be articles tagged for notability: there may be cosmetic issues such as neutrality or poor prose, but it's pointless to address them if the underlying notability issue means the article may end up removed. signed,Rosguill talk 17:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 4. When is it appropriate to remove the tags?

Anyone can remove the tag when they do not see the problem and do not have a COI. If removing the tag is overtly controversial, they should consult the talk page.

When there is an article about say, a notable militant attack, where majority of the article is written in a way to demonize the militants. In addition, the last three paragraphs are uncited but there are citations online, and the prose is poorly written. In that case, I will tag for NPOV, more refs, and a CE.
 * 5. Describe an article or link an example of an article where it would be appropriate to place three or more tags on an article.


 * 6. Think of 3 combinations of two tags that would never make sense to apply at the same time.
 * Can you come up with examples that are not logically contradictory? These aren't wrong, but they are trivial. Also, I recommend using template name syntax to namedrop templates. signed,Rosguill talk 17:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

refimproveunreferencedUnbalancedpov those are the only ones I can think of. I'm a bit confused by this question.
 * , clarification requested. Thanks,  &ddagger; The Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   15:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was looking for an answer like notabilityorphan, original researchcopyedit, unreferencedlead too long. In these cases, while such problems could exist side by side, it does not help to add these combinations of tags because the second tag cannot be addressed until the first one is. signed,Rosguill talk 16:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I understand this now. Sorry for the confusion.  &ddagger; The Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   23:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That brings us to our conclusion at NPPSCHOOL. You did very well so I have gone ahead and conferred new page reviewer permissions. Feel free to reach out to me if you run into any issues while reviewing. signed,Rosguill talk 23:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)