User:Zach Vega/Testing

Test 1: The Five Pillars
✅ Grade: 8/9 (88.9%)

This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. There's no time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?
 * -No, As even though they are a friend, they don't count as a reliable source unless they are considered a reliable source under the guidelines. ✅

2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
 * A - You shouldn't include it on either, in my opinion, and that's the point; it isn't fact. Even if it's blatantly obvious to you, it's still an opinion. ✅

3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?
 * A- No, you may not, because it would be considered original research, and the rules clearly state that you can't make a point that hasn't already been made somewhere else by a reliable source. If a news publication published an article about it, you could, but if only you are making the correlation, maybe you should post it on the talk page instead, and discuss it with other users. ✅ - Holy shit dude, you basically just described the synthesis policy - which we haven't even gotten to yet!

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?
 * A - I would soy not, because although BBC reporters should be unbiased, they might possibly have some tiny sway. Instead, just look for another source. Chances are, you'll find one that can be considered reliable, and you can assume is unbiased. ❌ - BBC is one of the "go-to" sources for all Wikipedia articles.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- No, because posts are usually by one person, and they are an employee at that! It's very likely that there would be a slant. ✅

6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
 * A- No, because a forum isn't a reliable source. ✅

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music-related article?
 * A - No, because it could be a false link, leading you to a site that isn't iTunes or Amazon. ✅

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
 * A - No, because Xerox isn't third-party; it would be a first-party opinion of it's own history. ✅

9) Q - Everybody knows that the sky is blue, right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?
 * A - I believe so, because in the rules, it states that you need to have a published source that you are going off of. ✅

Test 2: Cars and Shit
✅ Grade: 3/3 (100.0%) Have a look at the conversation below: Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

1) Position A?
 * A- Rod's mate ✅

2) Position B?
 * A- Rod ✅

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- Maybe. What he edits should be looked at prior to reporting him. If there is a growing trend that points toward an experienced editor, he probably should be reported. ✅

Test 3: Copyright
✅ Grade: 9/9 (100.0%) Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- Yes ✅

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- If it's in the public domain, you personally took the picture, it it has a CC licence, or if it's free. ✅

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- No, because you may only display articles that specifically state that you may use it for commercial purposes. ✅

Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.
 * A- Yes. ✅

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- No ✅

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Yes, because there is no way to get a free version or take the picture herself.

Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA. What do you do?
 * A- Mark as a copyright violation under CSD. ✅

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- Mark as a copyright violation under CSD. ✅

Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using File:IMAGENAME. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
 * A- File:IOS 7 Home Screen.png ✅