User:WormTT/Adopt/Test/MathewTownsend

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

'''This exam was begun at 21:49, March 12. It will end at 21:49,''' .

Practical Test
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 at least 4 pages in new page patrol Diffs:
 * - No changes made, no changes required - correctly marked as patrolled
 * - Small text change made, no other changes required. correctly marked as patrolled
 * - No changes made, no changes required - correctly marked as patrolled
 * - No changes made, no changes required - correctly marked as patrolled
 * - No changes made, no changes required - correctly marked as patrolled
 * - marked this version patrolled, despite missing references & categories - no sign of notability or even importance.
 * - No changes made, no changes required - correctly marked as patrolled
 * - No changes made, no changes required - correctly marked as patrolled
 * - No changes made, no changes required - correctly marked as patrolled
 * I'm not sure how you found so many good articles! I'm afraid I'm going to have to knock you down for Mandana Paintings, but I only needed 4 and you did 9, so I'll give you 9/10

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.
 * ✅ - Participate in at least two AfD debates with reasoned comments. Diffs:
 * Good rationale
 * Good rationale, clearly done some research
 * Good rationale
 * Good rationale
 * Well, there's nothing I can say about that that's not positive. 10/10.
 * ✅ - Cleanup at least three articles (i.e., resolve at least one noted problem on at least three articles and remove that tag) Diffs:
 * Nicely formatted from list into text.
 * Good Copyedit
 * Nice and easy categorisation
 * Nice and easy categorisation
 * Nice and easy categorisation
 * Nice and easy categorisation
 * Oh well done for trying to clean up an actual article
 * Nice and easy categorisation
 * Nice and easy categorisation
 * Nice and easy categorisation
 * Only needed 3. You did loads. All good, 10/10
 * ✅ - Make at least 5 anti-vandal reversions and warn the vandals appropriately. Diffs:
 * I'm stunned that you would count that as vandalism! It appears to be a good faith edit, and quite possibly a good edit all together. Warned too...
 * Correctly identified vandalism. correctly warned.
 * good faith edit, attempting to add future information in. Not vandalism.
 * correctly identified vandalism, could have given more severe warning based on past behaviour
 * correctly identified vandalism, could have given more severe warning
 * Correctly identified vandalism. correctly warned.
 * Probably vandalism, correctly warned.
 * I'm not too keen on some of your edits here, you reverted a couple of good faith edits as vandalism and gave a few others too soft warnings. 5/10.
 * ✅ - Join a project associated with your interests. Diffs:
 * Well done
 * 10/10

Practical Test: 44/50

Written Test
Please leave your response to each question where indicated. Worm That Turned will check your responses at the end of the exam. Note that for some questions there may be multiple correct answers - as long as a response is in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it will be marked correct.


 * 1) What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
 * A: Consensus is the process of reaching agreement about an issue/edit/procedure etc., keeping in mind that consensus can change. Consensus can be assumed if no one changes an edit. If there is disagreement, consensus can be reach through well presented arguments or points and attempts to compromise through discussion on the talk page. Making an attempt to discuss the issues on the other editor's talk page may also be of help. It is important to keep in mind Dispute resolution steps. There are various options for getting help: Dispute resolution requests, ranging from the informal to more formal processes such as Dispute resolution requests/DRN or an Requests for comment may be employed. (And I'd look for a specialized noticeboard could be of help. Editors can !vote but pure votes without convincing reasons do not weigh as much as statements backed by good reasons. Outside opinions can be obtained through posting at the Village Pump or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or other noticeboards, being careful not to canvass or forum shop. Last stop would be Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom. I assume that the same procedures would apply to changes to Wikipedia policies, and that changes to policy would require convincing discussion from a wide range of editors that would be affected by a policy change and change would occur slowly on something as important as policy.
 * Very good answer, hits all the key points. 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:I would contact the editor on his talk page, explain the need for reliable sources and notability, and inform him he has some time (five days) to comply. I would probably do a little searching myself to try to come up with some citations. If I was convinced that the article was utter trash and not salvageable, I would list it at AFD. (Or at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if it was about a living person.) Actually that happened recently, when I was too quick to add a PROD tag, the only one I've ever done. The editor was angry and contacted me immediately. We discussed it on my talk page, and I ended up helping him out and showing him WebCite for one of his disappearing citations.
 * Very good answer, talking to the editor is almost always the best first option. 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: I would make sure that it had proper citations and that it was notable. I would contact the editor who reverted and explain to him my reasons. If he continued to add the PROD, I'm not sure what I'd do. Perhaps list it at AFD with my reasons for why it should be kept. Or if his tagging was clearly out of line, I might report him somewhere at a third opinion place like Wikiquette assistance, Editor assistance/Requests or the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I would get help, in other words. See Dashboard.
 * All good, again talking to the editor is a great option. Although you are in the right to remove a PROD, they can be removed for pretty much any reason, it sounds like most of the steps you are taking are reasonable. Not sure about listing an article you don't want deleted at AfD, that always seems odd when it happens, but everything else is good. 5/5
 * 1) When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
 * A: When an editor or ip repeatedly adds edits that are clearly damaging to the encyclopedia, after having been warned four times recently not to do so.
 * Four times isn't necessary, depending on the severity. If it's clear that they're not going to stop, despite repeated warnings which had a chance to sink in - then report. 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: I think db-blanked covers it. Or db-user?
 * That's the one (blanked) 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: Admit I was wrong to him and apologize. (However, I'd have to check whether his research articles are considered reliable sources. If they're not, it still would be wrong to remove them as "vandalism" but undo or edit with the proper explanation and follow up by giving the reasons on the article talk page.)
 * As long as you're not ignoring the problem and willing to back down, I'm happy - proper explainations are always helpful 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: Probably no. I can't assume an image is not copyrighted just because there's no notice. I would have to find out who the originator of the image was. Then I would have to be sure that it fit one of the criteria for PD, like a US government work, or an old image that is no longer under copyright. If I really needed it, I would follow the directions for Fair use, fill out the criteria correctly and upload that with the image.
 * Very good. The other thing you can do is find out who created the image and contact them about allowing use. 4/5
 * 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: I would comment and clearly explain that the article does not fit AfD criteria. I'd ask for a "Speedy keep". If I was working with other editors on the article, I would ask them to comment also. I've never seen that happen and I don't think an article at that level would ever be deleted.
 * Perfect. You can also talk to the editor directly, explaining the reasons why it shouldn't be deleted and that you're about to go up for FA, see what they say, but your answer is perfectly valid. Careful of canvassing though! 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:Thanks for helping with ! It's a great help.
 * Oh, so close! You missed the "Thanks again!" second parameter. But considering how much trouble you had with the template lesson, I'm very impressed. 3/5
 * 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: I would report it to Copyright problems. I've done that once before. There's a page where you list the article and the copyvio source. There is a way to blank the page with a template.
 * That's great. Talking to the editor would also be very helpful, explaining what he's done wrong and helping him fix it. 4/5

Written test: 44/50

Questions and excuses
If you have any problems during the exam, please post them here. Good luck!

Results
Final score: 88% - Pass