User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 1

Notability
✅
 * Notability


 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)


 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)


 * Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest


 * Common Wikipedia practices when evaluating notability

Notability
✅
 * Notability ✅
 * Notability is the worthiness of a subject to have its own standalone article. The subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for verifiabilty so that notability can be established. The sources must be independent of the subject, reliable and have wide coverage of the subject.The subject must meet the overall GNG criteria and must not be excluded in what Wikipedia is not Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  08:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * General Notability Guideline (GNG) ✅
 * For a subject to meet the general Notability guidelines. It must have significant coverage in a reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Significant coverage means that it needs to be the main topic of the source and should not include original research. A source being reliable is when a source has editorial integrity for evaluation of notability and should not be user generated. It must be able to meet reliable sources guidelines. A source is independent when the author or company publishing the source has it has no personal or professional connection with the subject. Sources published by the subject are not independent but may be reliable if they do not include advertisements and are supported by secondary sources. If the subjects meets the criteria above, it is worthy of its on article on the English Wikipedia since it is notable. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  08:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG) ✅


 * Specific notability guidelines are also known as shortcuts to meeting the general notability guidelines. They are derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate.When a subject does not meet WP:GNG but weakly meets the WP:SNG of the article, it can be deleted.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  08:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Reviewer comment - SNG's are "generally derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field" but actual in-depth sources independent of the subject likely exists (such as in local libraries or archives) or a source will likely be written for the topic in the future due to the strength of accomplishment (such as winning a Nobel prize). Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG. We occasionally come across these situations with women in countries where they may still be struggling with oppression of some sort. It may be a case of the less obvious or unconventional notability, or it may be an accumulation of various accomplishments by a person whereas a single accomplishment would not meet the criteria but by stacking various accomplishments, it will pass. A good example that I highly recommend reading is Articles_for_deletion/Kanwal_Ameen. If you can, read all the arguments and discussion, particularly this comment by . Other WP:N cases may be a particular national sport or event, or the subject might be an inventor that did not receive widespread media attention but the invention is notable which indicates there is likely to be RS in a local library that provide more information about the inventor. Remember, WP:V is key, multiple WP:RS follows. Atsme Talk 📧 09:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Okay, thanks for that, mostly I used to rely on web sources to determine notability. If I would have participated in the Afd (before reading DGG arguments) I would have voted delete( since I could just carry out a quick web search). This aspect of determining notability was never known to me though. Thank you. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest ✅


 * These offer a more in depth criteria of the different topics. An example is the WP:NCORP. Company notability is one of the strictest criteria we have on Wikipedia, so I’ll use it.


 * 1) First, Decisions based on verifiable information: it states that No company or organization is considered inherently notable if individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources and an organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it.
 * 2) The primary criteria: More of the same with GNG.It states that a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Since more article concerning companies are most likely to be written against WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV. It has also group specific criteria guidelines like for schools Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  21:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: - accredited schools are accepted 99.9% of the time, almost automatically, but WP:V is important.


 * Common Wikipedia practices when evaluating notability ✅


 * 1) Check the primary, secondary and tertiary sources if they are independent, reliable and have significant coverage on the subject.
 * 2) If sources there, confirm if the subject is the main topic in most of the sources in the article
 * 3) The sources should not have a personal or professional connection with the subject, they should also not be user generated.
 * 4) The sources should be reliable I.e trusted by many for information and editor verifiability.
 * 5) Check if the subject meets GNG or any of the subject notability guidelines.
 * 6) If all are met, the subject is notable

Seems like am done with the section. Megan Barris  (Lets talk📧)  21:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Redoing ping Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  07:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * - good job!! Just an FYI - it is helpful when NPP reviewers take the time to fix issues during the review process. The amount of time you invest depends on you, but I've been known to not only CE, I have expanded stubs and added more citations rather than just add tags. I've done the same in AfC, and have also worked with article creators in an attempt to help them learn what WP expects and how to do it. Atsme Talk 📧 09:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Should I begin the next section ? Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - it's ready for you. I will collapse the completed section in a few days or so. Atsme Talk 📧 13:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Steps to determine notability
✅ - I think you may have accidentally overlooked this part which is basically asking you the first 3 steps you would take to determine notability. Atsme Talk 📧 17:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) - I would check online for any reliable sources, books or journals that have the subject of the article mentioned per WP:V
 * 2) - I would check at the sources myself to make sure they are independent of the subject, reliable and have significant coverage of the subject.
 * 3) - I would check if the subject meets the overall WP:GNG guidelines or any WP:SNG guidelines. If the subject does, then the subject is notable
 * , Ohh! Never really saw this part. Thanks for notifying. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  17:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem - my numbers weren't showing up, so I just added the - marks and they showed up. It was my fault for not making it more obvious. Atsme Talk 📧 17:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Take a look above, is it okay? Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  17:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are the steps I usually take Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  17:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Close enough to pass but I prefer a bit more detail which indicates to me that you're investing an adequate amount of time and being thorough with the review. For example, (aside from than the most obvious CSD/AfD candidates, less than stubs, and copyvios):
 * 1) confirm verifiability and notability per RS, making sure the content is compliant with NPOV, MOS and reflects what the sources say;
 * 2) read the article to confirm that it is written competently (in English), cohesively and that it flows;
 * 3) take the time to fix issues rather than simply tagging them, and don't hesitate to check the NPP flow chart from time to time to make sure you're covering all your bases, at least until it becomes 2nd nature to you. Atsme  Talk 📧 18:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
✅

, let's discuss here. First, I need the link to the draft. I'm using Kaveri Priyam as part of the process. Atsme Talk 📧 13:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Evaluate these sources in context regarding requirements for WP:GNG and WP:V:


 * NetTV4u,
 * News Lagoon,
 * ABP Live,
 * Koimoi, Midday.


 * Add your comment under each source. Atsme Talk 📧 13:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * After a quick study, we need more sources. Some sources may not be reliable . But subject may meet WP:GNG Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  17:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice table, ! Ok, context matters. Let's review (1) what came up on alexa.com, (2) their "about" pages, (3) content (4) editorial board/staff, (5) WP article? (6) are they being cited by other sources?
 * nettv4u ranks 36,673 - meh...not impressive - depends on context
 * news lagoon - ranks 54,071 - not liking this tabloid - I agree with you
 * news.abplive.com- ranks 1,871 globally which is a fairly high ranking, so it's a popular site.
 * koimoi.com ranks 16,648 globally, decent ranking
 * mid-day.com ranks 13,400 globally, decent ranking


 * Also take a look at WP:INCINE and WP:ICTFSOURCES, keeping in mind they need updating, and that this BLP is notable as a tv actor not a movie star, although she did land a role in a movie that received little attention. The sources we use are dependent on context per WP:RS: Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. In a nutshell, WP rejects WP:OR; therefore, our material must be cited to sources that have editorial integrity, which serves as reassurance to our readers (and a CYA for us), that the material we included allows for a verifiable evaluation. When I analyze a source for reliability that hasn't already been evaluated (especially Indian tv & film), I'm looking at the business models, editorial oversight, staff, online reports/criticism about that source and if it's cited in other sources. I also check WP:RS/Perennial, and look to see if the relative projects have anything more to add. Atsme Talk 📧 19:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have a script for that, it’s actually pretty cool. It marks unreliable sources from WP:RSPSOURCES Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  19:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Most Indian websites aren’t normally reliable, there are just so many television actors and actresses in India. Thanks for the evaluation above, I didn’t think of that Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  19:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is important to keep things in perspective. The reason there are so many actors and actresses is because the population of India is over 1.3 billion as compared to the US which is only 331+ million - stark contrast. Atsme Talk 📧 21:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Right!. But given the well-known propensity of the Indian press to publish articles in these fields for pay, and only for pay, how can we possibly rely on any source from that region for this material?  The only sure basis I can see for an article in this field is a reference from elsewhere, such as an international competition or a reliable reference book--and there are such books.  DGG ( talk ) 10:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ...interesting. You say it's well known? Would you be so kind as to share some links that explain how that works, and why they all do it? They actually have news publications, wires like we do, and when you've got live streaming of an award ceremony, and photographs of the event, the published articles are easily corroborated. I doubt high powered celebrites are paying online publications/print magazines to publish articles about them, but I don't doubt the lesser notables have press agents buying spots to promote them. Regardless, facts are facts, whether it's paid for by clients (who are typically sponsored) or published free and paid for by advertisers/sponsors. ESPN sells many of their time slots and you'll never know which ones. In fact, all the broadcast stations sell time as do the networks. Online publications and print magazines do the same thing in the US. The internet has hurt subscription print and the broadcast industry somewhat. They're all vying for the same sponsors/commercial $$$. People can create their own broadcast channels on the internet and take advantage of click revenue to get their story out. Stop and think about it - people/businesses have paid to get their articles in WP, although not by design and we sure as hell don't like it, but a lot of people believe it anyway. In my circle of friends & acquaintences, people have wrongly assumed that I'm paid to write articles. You should see the jaw drops when I tell them no, I don't get paid. It's my hobby...a pasttime I enjoy because I've been a writer so long it's hard to stop, and I truly do enjoy being part of the commuity and going to the WikiCons - Kumbaya, my friends! SMirC-chuckle.svg Atsme  Talk 📧 12:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not disagree with you that these ways of doing things are restricted to India, or that the US is free of them. Like you, I'm here because we at least try to be free of commercial influences.  DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines
✅
 * Assume good faith ✅
 * AGF is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith, meaning that they are not made with intent to harm the project. Assuming good faith requires an editor to be civil and follow dispute resolution instead of attacking or edit warring.Good faith may be practiced when:

Editors can demonstrate good faith by,articulating their honest motives and by making edits that show their willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of their edits and avoidance of gaming the system. When dealing with bad faith edits or editors, never loose your cool and civility. We should also never accuse other editors of bad faith without proper evidences inform of diff. Accusing other editors without evidence may be termed as personal attack and hence may escalate the dispute/conflict.
 * 1) Dealing with new editors, since they may not understand policies.
 * 2) Dealing with copyright violations
 * 3) When performing administerial action
 * Trainer's notes: a few specifics for you to keep in mind:
 * "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism." Criticize the edit, not the editor. Try to eliminate the use of "you" in a discussion. For example, instead of saying "Your grammar sucks", eliminate "your" and modify the approach: "The material we include in WP must be grammatically correct..." and then perform the action by grammatically correcting the material to use as the example.
 * WP:PA - "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." The latter refers to ASPERSIONS. Keep in mind that even when you provide evidence that, from your perspective, supports the accusation, it must be unequivocally so or you may be setting yourself up for a WP:BOOMERANG based on an "in the eyes of the beholder" argument. To reiterate, it is always best to focus on content, not editors. Atsme Talk 📧 16:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Noted, I have also finished some bits below, I better continue with the next section. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is one of the most sensitive areas of Wikipedia hence editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. When writing BLP articles, the following must be checked: When using sources and determining reliable sources, we should avoid, Presumption in favour of Privacy ✅
 * Biographies of living people ✅
 * 1) Tone
 * 2) Balance
 * 3) Avoiding attacks
 * 1) Avoid misuse of primary sources
 * 2) Self-published sources
 * 3) Avoid gossip and feedback loops
 * 4) contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced
 * 1) Avoid victimization-When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
 * 2) Public figures- in the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
 * 3) Privacy of personal information and using primary sources- Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.
 * 4) People who are relatively unknown-Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.
 * 5) Subjects notable only for one event-Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article
 * 6) People accused of crime- per WP:SUSPECT A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law.
 * 7) Privacy of names

Note BLP article should not be used by editors with COI to continue disputes Another note 
 * 1) BLP guidelines applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.
 * 2) BLP guidelines also apply to recently deceased people.
 * 3) Editors are also subject to Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions pursuant to WP:NEWBLPBAN authorized the application of discretionary sanctions to "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace."
 * Trainer's notes: - there are a few key factors to always keep in mind when reviewing or just editing a BLP, or company article in which a BLP is inseperable per WP:BLPGROUP:
 * WP:CRYBLP - if you encounter resistence, do not violate 3RR even if you are certain the material is or isn't a BLP vio. Seek input on the TP first; if that doesn't bring results, take it to WP:BLPN and leave the template on the article TP per the header instructions. Consider seeking an administrator's assistance if you believe it is an egregious BLP vio and let the admin make that determination.
 * WP:GUILT - be watchful of attempts to smear a BLP via "guilt by association". For example, a common tactic is to juxtapose derogatory material about a convicted 3rd party that may have been a former associate or friend of the BLP but there is no direct connection to the crime. Another tactic is to use WP:SYNTH. Atsme Talk 📧 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing) ✅
 * Conflict of interest involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships( just any external relationship with the subject of the article). Editors with a COI, paid editors, are expected to disclose. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant connection per Wikipedia terms of use. When an editor has COI, they should not edit the article, instead they should propose changes to the talk page of the article.

COI editors should: Paid editors should:
 * 1) should disclose their COI when involved with affected articles
 * 2) may propose changes on talk pages of the affected article
 * 3) you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly
 * 4) should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere
 * 5) should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.
 * 1) must disclose who is paying them, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation
 * 2) must make the disclosure on their user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever they discuss the topic
 * 3) may propose changes on talk pagesor by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed
 * 4) Have their articles reviewed at Afc
 * 5) should not act as a reviewer at Afc or NPP of the article.
 * 6) must respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise
 * Categories of COI include


 * 1) Legal and other disputes
 * 2) Campaigning, political
 * 3) Writing about yourself, family, friends
 * 4) Citing yourself
 * 5) Cultural sector
 * 6) Wikipedians in residence, reward board
 * Copyright ✅


 * Contributions to Wikipedia are licensed  to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL. When you contribute to Wikipedia you retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia since Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia.

According to WP:COPYOTHERS, all creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed.Also we should never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. According to WP:COPYLINK, since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material unless you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.

Noted : ✅ When re-using text:
 * 1) Editors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems.
 * 2) Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have explicitly been placed in the public domain.
 * 1) Provide attribution to the other or source of the copyrighted material
 * 2) If you make modifications or additions to the page you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later.
 * 3) If you make modifications or additions, you must indicate in a reasonable fashion that the original work has been modified
 * 4) Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC BY-SA and either


 * Trainer's notes: - Copyvio is an extremely important area when reviewing at AfC and NPP, so following are some suggestions to keep in mind:
 * If, for whatever reason, an article that contains copyright violations makes it into namespace WP:JUSTFIXIT, and advise the editor;
 * Make sure the editor is not a serial violator. If the latter, find and tag the articles and open a case at WP:CCI. Atsme Talk 📧 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hoaxes and attack pages ✅

A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real.A hoax is simply a more obscure, less obvious form of vandalism, and perpetrators of hoaxes are subject to blocking and banning.A hoax is considered notable if it evaded detection for more than one month or was discussed by reliable sources in the media or may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years. Users who add hoaxes to Wikipedia should be warned with a uw- hoax and the article tagged for CSD with. An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Attack pages should be tagged with a dB-attack and the user warned with a uw-attack. If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place( especially BLP article). When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject.
 * Trainer's notes: - be on the lookout for BLPs that are hoaxes. I have come across 2 cases of young adults who created their own BLPs. One was doing handy work as a local carpenter, but his BLP made him look like the CEO of a multimillion dollar remodeling & construction company. He even used the address of a notable architectural firm as his headquarters. He created several fake PRs and submitted them to online PR companies/media and used them as cited sources in his article. Another hoax was a young aspiring politician who was still in college. He managed to get interviews with notable politicians and used those images to create the impression that he was a popular young politician that was making a difference. In most cases, the sources will not be RS and the material will be very promotional. They almost always bypass AfC. Atsme Talk 📧 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Communications
✅
 * Discussions with creators of new pages ✅


 * It is always important to discuss with creators of new pages if you their article may have problems or be a breach of policy and guidelines. This is particularly important when dealing with new users taking keen care not to bite them, but instead guide them. If they are old users experienced users, there is likeliness they know undefined the guidelines on article creation so a proper explanation should be provided to them.


 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss ✅


 * Automated notifications don’t normally offer have enough explaination undefined reasons why an article may have been CSD tagged or draftified. undefined got tagged for speedy deletion or moved to draft . It’s often better to leave a quick note and hide guide them to some help pages some helpful explanatory essays on better articles like such as WP:YFA,WP:ACR or WP:BETTER.


 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions ✅


 * We are all here to build an encyclopedia, therefore we should always check our tone when having discussions with other users per WP:CIVIL. We should always go straight to the point when having discussions and never move out of the go off-topic in a discussion. If you are pissed of, its undefined It is always better to remain cool and mature. Before When engaging in any discussions, a proper research on the topic of discussion would be important so that you one can be prepared for any anything that may come up.


 * Wikilove/positive comments ✅


 * Everyone always wants to be appreciated for their work, and to be told that the work they do is Important important. We are not here to hate other editors. undefined A barnstar or positive comment may do the trick in promoting the morale of other editors and encouraging them to contribute more to the encyclopedia.


 * Warning templates ✅


 * Although most of my edits to user’s talk pages have been warnings, I actually don’t believe warnings help that much (though they are important). I prefer having direct discussions with the user.Warnings are only appropriate when the user persists in breach of policy after discussions and prior notices.

Trainees note I had to redo some of the sections above. I read it through a couple of times, if their is anything I missed, let me know. Cheers


 * Gave my responses and opinion above Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  18:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Redoing Ping Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  10:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * - communication is very important, which is why I want you to carefully re-read what you wrote in this section, and correct the grammar errors. It is important because if you are unable to see those errors now, you will more than likely miss them when reviewing articles. You must be able to recognize cohesive sentence structure, spot misspellings and poor English, keeping in mind that WP is an encyclopedia. What I want you to do is highlight the errors in this Communication section and then follow the highlighted text with the corrected spelling/grammar. Also - we do have some copyediting tools that you may find useful. And before I forget, check-out the script Cite Unseen which is a great tool for evaluating sources. Atsme Talk 📧 15:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2nd ping - if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 23:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Re-did most of the sections above, mind taking a quick look and thank you for taking your time to help and train me, you are a great human being. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  14:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, you did ok with American/British English being your 2nd language. I went ahead and marked your corrections above, so take a look at it, and don't hesitate to ask questions. You're almost done, and it all looks good up to this point, especially with your willingness to learn. I don't forsee any issues with you recognizing obvious spam, promotion, paid/COI editing, notability or sourcing issues, and I believe you are able to quickly identify MOS issues and blatant grammar issues. We occasionally get students with school assignments to create or edit articles, so if you come across a student having issues, teach them how to use draft space, and provide links to the relevant guidelines - be a mentor. We want to encourage new editors to keep editing, and we do that by maintaining a friendly and collegial working environment. If you suspect that an article needs grammatical improvement; i.e., copy editing, or it needs more sources, find the RS instead of tagging the article, or if the citations need expansion, use Citer and fix them, or you discover the TP hasn't been created yet, go ahead and create it. You will see those issues frequently when patrolling so go ahead and WP:FIXIT. Also study & bookmark the clean-up template page which includes page tags, section tags and inline tags. It is always better to tag sections that need help rather than tagging the entire page. It is even more helpful if you can be specific by tagging inline.   Of course, the best solution is to WP:JUSTFIXIT, if you can.
 * You are almost done with your schooling - 2 more sections to go which I've already added below. They are verrry important sections, so proofread your work, and take your time. WP has no deadlines. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 18:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * NOTE from the reviewer: - take your time and don't hesitate to ask questions. When we speed read through a review, we tend to overlook grammatical errors. Familiarize yourself with WP:COPYEDITORS, particularly how and when to notify them. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 18:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion
✅
 * Articles for Deletion ✅


 * AfD is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted( when it has not met the criteria WP:CSD or its to controversial to be tagged with a PROD). Articles listed in AfD are discussed within a timeframe of seven days unless relisted. The result of AFDs are determined through consensus and not !votes.
 * When contributing to an AFD an editor should maintain WP:ETIQ. The BLP guidelines still applies in AFDs hence any comment breaching BLP guidelines, should be removed immediately.When creating an AFD:


 * 1) One should notify all interested parties
 * 2) Delsort
 * 3) Notify specific Wikiprojects
 * 4) Notifying substantial contributors to the article
 * An AFD may lead to the following types of results:

Point to note An AfD is the most preferable option when in doubt over the notability of the subject of the article
 * 1) Speedy Keep Mostly when withdrawn by nominator
 * 2) Keep
 * 3) Delete
 * 4) Soft delete Acts as an expired PROD, when there is little participation in an AFD
 * 5) No consensus 
 * 6) Merge
 * 7) Dabify
 * 8) Bold text
 * 9) Redirect
 * 10) Incubate
 * 11) Userfy
 * 12) Listify 
 * 13) Redirect
 * Doing BEFORE ✅


 * Before nominating an article for deletion, one should:
 * One should read and understand the relevant policies such as: the deletion policy, notability policies, WP:V, WP:RS,what Wikipedia is not, WP:SNG and common outcomes
 * Carry out checks to find out whether:
 * The articles does not meet the criteria in speedy deletion, prod and speedy keep
 * There are notability concerns, in this case one should try to find sources himself/herself.
 * Check the history for any prior vandalism or poor editing
 * Check articles TP for prior nominations
 * Check for Inter language links, to check whether their is possibility of a better sources article on another Wikipedia.
 * Check whether the article can be improved:either by improving the article yourself or adding cleanup tags.
 * Search for additional sources if the concern in the AFD was notability.
 * Point of note After this process is followed by an editor,and the article still has multiple issues, then it’s better to log it at AfD


 * PROD and BLPPROD ✅


 * Proposed deletion is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion.It is meant for uncomplicated deletion nominations that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, it should not be replaced, even if the tag was removed in bad faith.
 * Note:
 * Any page which has been deleted as a result of a proposed deletion can be undeleted upon request at WP:REFUND, unless it has issues such as copyright violations.
 * An administrator may decide on their own to restore a page that has been deleted after a proposed deletion without having to make the request at Requests for undeletion.
 * Unsourced biographies of living people are eligible for a special type of proposed deletion known as BLPPROD. For an article to qualify for BLPPROD:
 * Subject of article is a living person or recently deceased
 * contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography
 * Point of note: BLP articles may still be nominated for standard PROD if they do not meet BLPPROD criteria, or even if an article has previously been flagged for BLPPROD and declined.


 * Soft deletion ✅


 * Soft deletion is a type of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request at WP:REFUND


 * Speedy Deletion ✅


 * Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way.
 * Note Creators of pages should not remove the CSD tag from pages they have created themselves.


 * Pages that have survived deletion discussions can only be deleted under the following criteria:
 * G5, creation by banned or blocked users, subject to the strict condition that the AfD participants were unaware that the article would have met the criterion and/or that the article creator's blocked or banned status was not known to the participants of the AfD discussion.
 * G6, technical deletions
 * G8, pages dependent on nonexistent pages
 * G9, office actions
 * G12, unambiguous copyright violations
 * G13, stale drafts, if 6 months have passed since the deletion discussion and any subsequent human edits
 * A2, foreign language articles on other Wikimedia projects
 * A5, transwikied pages
 * F8, images on Commons
 * F9, unambiguous copyright infringement
 * U1, user requests deletion within their own userspace
 * General criteria are:
 * G1. Patent nonsense
 * G2. Test pages
 * G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes
 * G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion
 * G5. Creations by banned or blocked user
 * G6. Technical deletions
 * G7. Author requests deletion
 * G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page
 * G9. Office actions
 * G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose
 * G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
 * G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement
 * G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions
 * G14. Unnecessary disambiguation pages


 * Article criteria are:
 * A1. No context
 * A2. Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project
 * A3. No content
 * A5. Transwikied articles
 * A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)
 * A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings)
 * A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic
 * A11. Obviously invented


 * Redirects:
 * R2. Cross-namespace redirects
 * R3. Implausible typos
 * R4. File namespace redirects with names that match Wikimedia Commons pages


 * Files
 * F1. Redundant
 * F2. Corrupt, missing or empty file
 * F3. Improper license
 * F4. Lack of licensing information
 * F5. Orphaned non-free use images
 * F6. Missing non-free use rationale
 * F7. Invalid fair-use claim
 * F8. Images available as identical copies on Wikimedia Commons
 * F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement
 * F10. Useless non-media files
 * F11. No evidence of permission


 * Pages in user namespace:
 * U1. User request
 * U2. Nonexistent user
 * U3. Non-free galleries
 * U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host


 * Categories
 * C1. Unpopulated categories
 * C2. Speedy renaming and merging


 * Portals:
 * P1. Any portal that would be subject to speedy deletion as an article
 * P2. Underpopulated portal


 * A7 criterion: A7 does not apply to any other subject that does not indicate importance such as products, software, books, schools.
 * I have read the policies and summarized them here. This time I proof read my work. I am also a bit confused on this next section. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , what follows below are simply procedures for reviewing. You briefly summarize what improvement tagging is and when to apply it.  Do you know how to categorize, and what is the procedure, and so forth down the line. Some of this was already covered so you don't have to be too detailed. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 13:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for clarifying! The section “Deletion” was also covered in CVUA, also WP:FIELD offered very good explanations on CSD. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  13:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Reviewer comments: - You have covered the section well, a bit more than expected, but it demonstrates you have a clue, and more than adequate knowledge about the deletion process.

Reviewing Procedures
✅
 * Improvement Tagging ✅


 * Improvement tags are used to clearly identify problems with Wikipedia pages to indicate to other editors that improvements are needed. Any editor without a COI may remove the tag once the problem in the article has been fixed and their is no complaint on the talk page.


 * My note Improvements tags should only be placed on an article when one can not WP:JUSTFIXIT the article themselves. Do not overtag since it is considered disruptive.


 * Categorizing ✅


 * Categories are intended to group together pages on similar subjects. A tool such as hot cat may be used to add categories to a page. Guidelines on adding categories to a page:


 * 1) Use the most specific categories possible.
 * 2) Categorize based on defining characteristics.
 * 3) Add pages to multiple categories in overlapping trees.
 * 4) Provide sort keys or a DEFAULTSORT key.
 * 5) Add cleanup templates where needed.
 * Stub sorting ✅


 * A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. Stubs are often sorted to either one of the stubs categories listed at WP:SST.


 * Use of the flow chart and other reviewing guides ✅


 * The NPP flowchart should always become a second nature to every NPP reviewer. Each step displayed on the flowchart is important and should be followed strictly by a reviewer when reviewing new pages. Here are some common practices in NPP I read about and I should Note:


 * 1) Attack pages should be blankedand tagged for speedy deletion under G10
 * 2) Hoaxes should also be deleted quickly
 * 3) Schools and other educational institutions should not be tagged with A7
 * 4) If an article does not qualify entirely as a copyvio, but has bits of it, revision deletion should be requested.
 * 5) Moving an article to draft should not be used in place of a formal deletion process.
 * 6) Articles in other languages should not be tagged as G1, languages are never gibberish
 * 7) A2 should only be used when an article in another Wikipedia has been copy pasted to the English Wikipedia
 * 8) Never bite the newbies
 * 9) Before tagging for A3 or A1, wait for 10-15 minutes to see if the article is expanded.
 * Scripts for reviewing use/ease ✅


 * Scripts automates some processes of NPP, the page curation tool and Twinkle are examples of common tools that automates tagging, reviewing and notification in NPP. Scripts also automates fixing of common mistakes in new articles e.g addition of to  articles. Individual editors are liable for any edits made via the script

Did the task above. I read the notice board and I sketched the flowchart on a note book to further familiarize myself with it. From my contribution, over the past few days I have been cleaning articles by adding categories ,cleaning citations, adding Wikiprojects, doing minor typos and fixing per WP:MOS. Megan Barris  (Lets talk📧)  17:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Reviewer comment: - good job, Megan! You passed the course. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 19:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your dedicated time and effort to help me out. You have really been a good trainer and I hope when I become a reviewer, I won’t let you down. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  19:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User:JJPMaster
, this is the beginning of your NPP training. When in edit view, you will see a hidden text instruction under each subsection. You are expected to present, in your own words, a short summary of what you have learned about the respective policy or guideline. After you complete the first subsection (Notability), I will provide the next subsection per the list at User:Atsme/NPP training. It may seem like a lot to do at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training/exam is a drop in the bucket. Keep in mind, your reactions are also part of the exam. NPP is not a cake walk, and has been referred to as the step under becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions if you don't quite understand something. Good luck!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 21:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability (Pt 1)

 * Notability


 * Reviewee summary - Notability is a test by which editors decide if something deserves an article on it. If an article meets the general notability guideline (and/or other notability guidelines) and is not a violation of the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy, it is considered notable. Notability is determined primarily by coverage in reliable sources over a period of time; subjects notable for one event aren't necessarily notable for an article, however, this does not guarantee that a subject is necessarily notable, and notability is not temporary; once the subject of an article meets a notability guideline, it is presumed to be notable, forever. Notability does not necessarily imply that a subject should have a standalone article; it is often more appropriate to add the information to an existing article, as the existing article may provide context for the subject. The purpose of notability guidelines is in order to comply with various policies; for instance, reliable, secondary sources are preferred in order to promote compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The reliable sources must be independent so as to avoid self-promotion and advertising on Wikipedia. Lists are generally notable by different standards than articles; they must have received significant coverage as a group as opposed to as individual things. If an article or list does not meet notability criteria, you can either add cleanup templates to the article (Template:Notability or Template:Expert subject) or nominate it for deletion by one of three processes: speedy deletion, proposed deletion, or articles for deletion.
 * ✅ Done

Question: When should an article's content be merged into another article versus when it should the article be deleted in its entirety?
 * See WP:Merge, & also the essay WP:MERGETEST


 * General Notability Guideline (GNG)


 * Reviewee summary - The general notability guideline requires that, for an article's subject to be notable, it must have received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Significant coverage does not mean any mere mention, it refers to an in-depth analysis of the topic, in order to prevent requiring original research from being needed to establish notability. Reliability refers to the fact that sources must be verifiable and adhere to the reliable sources guideline, which states that secondary sources are the most reliable forms of sources, as primary sources may not necessarily be independent, and may constitute original research. Independence refers to the source's relation to the subject; sources that are written by the subject are generally considered unreliable or at least insufficient to establish notability. Keep in mind that adherence to this guideline does not necessarily guarantee notability; it simply presumes notability.
 * ✅ Done


 * Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)


 * Reviewee summary - Certain articles that do not meet the general notability guideline may meet one of many subject-specific notability guidelines in order to be notable. These guidelines generally contain criteria which recognize a subject's accomplishment in a field, even if it is hard to find reliable sources that demonstrate that, or in cases where reliable sources may appear in the future. In order for a topic to be notable, it does not need to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline, however, if the subject of an article does not meet GNG and barely meets an SNG, the article may still be deleted. Certain SNG's (such as WP:NCORP) restrict the types of sources which can be considered able to demonstrate notability. Some WikiProjects (such as WikiProject YouTube) contain essays which describe notability guidelines for the specific subjects of the projects, however, these are not actual guidelines.
 * ✅ Done


 * Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest


 * Reviewee summary - NCORP states that no organization is inherently notable; it must still have received at least some coverage from independent and reliable sources. Similarly, there are no organizations that inherit notability from people or other organizations. Just because a notable person or organization is associated with it does not necessarily imply that it is notable. In addition, if a person is a member of a notable organization, that does not make them notable as a person. NCORP's criteria that define notability state that an organization is notable if it receives coverage in significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Similar to the GNG, NCORP defines significant coverage as coverage that is beyond a trivial mention. Sources that are aimed at a more general audience are preferred to demonstrate notability over purely local sources. A source is deemed to be independent if both the author of the source is independent (as in not associated with the organization), and the content of the source is independent (as in original and fact-checked). A secondary source is a source that summarizes primary sources, and primary sources are sources that are direct accounts of an event, which may be written by non-independent authors and contain non-independent content, and are therefore considered not sufficient to establish notability for a corporation.
 * There are a series of alternate criteria, which are reserved for certain types of organizations. For instance, nonprofits are considered notable if they operate on a national or international level, and receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.


 * The notability guideline for music states that a musician or band is generally notable if they meet at least one of these criteria: is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources, has had any charted singles or albums, has had any record certified gold or higher, has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources about a national or international tour, has released at least two albums on a major label, is a band with two or more notable musicians or a musician who has been in two or more notable bands, is a prominent representative or a notable genre or scene of music, has been nominated for a major award, has podiumed in a major music competition, has performed music for notable media, is on rotation on a notable radio network, or is a subject of a major radio network. Members of notable bands or ensembles are generally redirected to the article for the band unless they meet the aforementioned criteria. The criteria for composers and lyricists are different, and state that a composer or lyricist is notable if they have a writing credit for a notable song, has written notable musicals or operas played in notable theatres, was used as the basis for a song by an already notable musician, has written a composition that placed in a notable composition, is a major influence on a notable musician, or receives coverage in references books on their musical genre. Non-notable musical recordings may be redirected to the artist's page if they have not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, have not appeared on national charts, been certified gold or higher, has won a major award, has been performed in a notable medium, is in rotation on a notable radio station, or is a subject of a segment of a notable radio station. Albums, songs, and unreleased content must have received major coverage in independent reliable sources in order to be notable for their own article. In most cases in which they are not notable, they are generally redirected to the artist or band's article.


 * The notability guideline for web content states that web content (such as a website or blog) is notable if it is the subject of independent reliable sources or has won a major award. The what Wikipedia is not policy states that articles should not exist for the sole purpose of describing a website, but instead should describe them in an encyclopedic manner, which offers in-depth detail on the cultural history and impact of the website. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a web directory, meaning that it does not exist for the sole purpose of containing links to and from websites.
 * ✅ Done


 * Question: Can self-published sources ever establish notability?
 * See WP:SPIP, WP:N: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4], and also read footnote #4


 * Common Wikipedia practices when evaluating notability


 * Reviewee summary -
 * 1. See if the article contains any sources or external links.
 * 2. If not, search for independent sources on the subject on Google.
 * 3. If no sources are found, nominate the article for deletion. If sources are found, ensure that they are reliable and then add them and a template to the article.
 * 4. Ensure that the article does not violate what Wikipedia is not.
 * 5. Confirm that the article meets GNG or an SNG that properly fits the subject of the article.


 * ✅ Done - Passed (Pt. 1) -- <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 19:48, November 24, 2020

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt 2)

 * Assume good faith
 * Reviewee summary -

Assuming good faith is a principle that means "assume that an editor's intentions were good". This does not always apply, for instance, if there is evidence that an editor's intentions weren't good, there is no need to assume that they were good. Aggressively citing the guideline is not a good idea (links to my favorite essays of all time: Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF and Assume the assumption of good faith), as it is possible that good faith is being assumed. When it is believed that an editor is acting in bad faith, then one must remain civil and avoid personal attacks and edit warring. In case you believe that an editor is acting in bad faith, you must provide evidence such as diffs. When dealing with newcomers, assuming good faith is very important, because they may not fully understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They may believe that their behavior is appropriate or that the policies which prohibit them from doing actions are wrong.
 * ✅ <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 17:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Biographies of living people


 * Reviewee summary -

Content about living persons must be adequately sourced, even to a greater extent than content that is not about living persons. Unsourced material on living persons may be removed as soon as it is identified. BLPs must keep the subject's privacy in mind. BLPs must be written with a neutral tone that summarizes reliable and independent secondary sources (at this point I've said this so many times I'll just abbreviate it as RISS) and/or certain self-published sources (they must still remain neutral, not include claims about third parties, and be related to the subject). The tone of BLPs must not use imprecise language unless said language is used in reliable sources. BLPs must attribute opinions in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Undue weight should not be given to particular viewpoints, especially ones that very small minorities have. Material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" must be sourced for all articles, while on BLPs, any contentious unsourced content must be removed without discussion, no matter the tone of the material. Reliable sources are preferred to be secondary sources for all articles, especially BLPs, where primary sources should almost never be used, such as court records and other public records. Self-published sources should especially be avoided, unless they are written by the subject of the article, as long as they are not the main sources used on the article, are undoubtedly true, and also meet my aforementioned criteria (they must still remain neutral, not include claims about third parties, and be related to the subject). Contentious material about living people must immediately be removed if it is unsourced, is original research, relies on self-published sources not written by the subject, or relies on sources that are in any other way unreliable. If an incident is notable and well-documented, it belongs in the article. Full names and dates of birth belong in the article if and only if they are well-sourced, however, email addresses, home addresses, or phone numbers do NOT belong in the article and should be oversighted. Articles on living people who are not well-known must only contain sourced material that demonstrates the subject's notability. If a person is notable only for one event, an article should not be created about them if all reliable sources about them are in the context of one event, the subject is a low-profile individual, and if the event itself is not notable. If an already notable person is accused of a crime, until they are convicted, their article should not contain material that claims that there was a crime committed. BLP policies apply to all namespaces, for instance, if you create a user page making unsourced accusations about a controversial political figure, it may still violate BLP policies and/or get deleted. If your username contains contentious material about living persons, it must be oversighted. Any person who has been born in the past 115 years is protected by the BLP policy unless they have been confirmed to be dead by a reliable source. Recently dead persons are protected by the policy until it has been at most 2 years since their death. Pages that contain severe BLP violations (such as Gerard Sutton (referee)) may be protected and users that add severe BLP violations to articles may be blocked.
 * ✅ Done


 * Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)


 * Reviewee summary -

Conflict of interest editing is defined as editing articles about yourself or someone with whom you have some connection. It is strongly discouraged. COI editors and paid editors are required to disclose their COI on their user page, and paid editors must disclose who is paying them to edit. COI editors are recommended to, instead of directly editing articles for which they have a COI, to request that the articles be edited on their behalf. Paid editors especially must disclose their COIs. They must disclose both who is paying them, and disclose what the edits are being made about (unless the edits are being made about the employer). If paid editing services are linked to any accounts on external websites, said external websites must be linked on the editor's user page. COI editing is not simply bias, that is, COI editing describes not the nature of the edits, but the relationships of the editor, for whom the COI edits are made. Undisclosed COI editors tend to add content that violates Wikipedia guidelines and policies (especially neutral point of view) which is why it is discouraged. In some cases, the text added by paid contributors may include copyright violations from, for instance, the company's website, in which it cannot be added. In other cases, if the paid contributor writes text on the company who is paying them, the copyright is owned by the company providing the paid services because it is considered a "work made for hire".
 * ✅ Done

Question: What is the meaning of the phrase "with respect to a certain judgment" in the definition for an actual COI?
 * If an editor has a COI, and material in the article is challenged, (let's say they work for the software company that created the video game subject of the article) that editor's judgement relative to challenged material (opinion to keep or delete, reword, etc.) may not be compliant with NPOV; therefore, their judgment may be viewed as serving their external interest rather than the interests of WP and its readers. If the conflicted editor demonstrates bad behavior to keep/remove material, it is highly likely they will face consequences ranging anywhere from a block to a site ban.


 * Copyright


 * Reviewee summary -

Wikipedia's content is protected under the CC BY-SA license, which states that Wikipedia's material may be copied or remixed as long as you attribute Wikipedia (BY) and ensure that your remix is protected by the same license (SA). All Wikipedia edits made are licensed per this license (this applies to text, not media). However, if text from Wikipedia is copied between articles, the origin of the text must be attributed in some way, such as an edit summary. Sometimes, unattributed copyrighted material is added to Wikipedia, which should be removed as fast as possible (if the page contains no other substantial content, it must be nominated for deletion). As for images and media, they can be protected by any license, and if they are to be used on Wikipedia, they must either be licensed from the copyright owner for use on Wikipedia, or be required to provide a rationale that explains why they should be allowed to be used per fair use laws. Although all works created by employees of the U.S. government (as part of their duties) are public domain, some works published by the U.S. government may not be public domain if their copyrights are assigned by others.
 * Hoaxes and attack pages
 * ✅ Done


 * Reviewee summary -

A hoax is a Wikipedia article created with the intent to deceive its audience. Hoaxes have been added to Wikipedia in the past with the intent to see if Wikipedia can identify it. Generally, these hoaxes are marked for speedy deletion not long after being identified, but some more elaborate hoaxes have taken much longer to identify. Adding blatant hoaxes to Wikipedia is a form of vandalism, that can, like other forms of vandalism, can lead to blocks. Hoaxes on Wikipedia hurt its reputation and misleads its audience. Some hoaxes can lead to legal and/or physical consequences. However, hoaxes are allowed to be written about, as long as the articles about the hoaxes confirm that the hoax is indeed a hoax; that it is false. If a hoax is identified, it should be tagged as such using the and PRODded, and if it is a blatant hoax, it can be speedy-deleted as pure vandalism.

An attack page is a page created with the intent of harassing its subject. Another form of attack page is unsourced, wholly negative BLPs. Upon identification of an attack page, it must be tagged for speedy deletion per G10 and courtesy blanked. If an attack page is created on a notable subject, it should be deleted and replaced with a neutral version of the article, assuming that there is no neutral version to revert to. A page in any namespace can be tagged as an attack page. For instance, like I mentioned in the BLP section, creating a user page with a list of unsourced accusations about a controversial political figure would be a violation of this attack page policy.


 * Question: Why are attack pages taken so seriously?
 * See WP:Libel, & WP:BLP footnote #1
 * ✅ Done. Passed (Pt. 2) -- <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 17:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Communications (Pt 3)
This section is relative to New pages patrol
 * Discussions with creators of new pages


 * Reviewee summary -

It is very important to be civil when discussing with the creators of new pages (or anything, with anyone for that matter), especially newcomers. Be careful not to bite them. Do not nominate their pages for A1 or A3 speedy deletion moments after they are created. When discussing with them, it is very important to not assume that, if their edits could be considered vandalism, that they are trying to deliberately vandalize Wikipedia, it is more acceptable to assume good faith and/or assume that they are not aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * ✅ Done - offer help and guidance when you can.


 * Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss


 * Reviewee summary -

Notifying editors of discussions is an important element of discussions. Notifying editors serves the purpose of helping establish consensus in the discussion. Some appropriate reasons to notify other editors include but are not limited to: notifying an editor of a discussion of their own actions, leaving a message on the talk page of the WikiProject(s) associated with an article being discussed, leaving a message on the talk page of articles affected by the discussions, and leaving a message on the user talk pages of associated editors. Some forms of inappropriate notification comprise what is called canvassing, which refers to notifying editors of discussions with the intent of influencing the outcome of the discussion. Some forms of canvassing include but are not limited to: spamming the user talk pages of uninvolved users with messages about the discussion, presenting the discussion in a non-neutral manner in order to persuade the user to believe a certain side, specifically targeting the user talk pages of users based on their affiliations and beliefs, and privately contacting uninvolved users with the intent of persuading them to vote a certain way in a discussion, unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages to communicate.
 * ✅ Done
 * Question: What does "automated notifications" mean in this context?
 * The NPP curation tool sends an auto-dispatched notification to the article creator whenever you add maintenance tags or nominate an article for deletion, etc. See Page_Curation/Help, and watch the video about the page curation video.


 * Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions


 * Reviewee summary -

The purpose of an article's talk page is to discuss the content of an article in order to improve it. Therefore, editors on talk pages should adhere to several guidelines. Firstly, you must clearly express what you're trying to say in your talk page messages. Furthermore, you should stay on topic and avoid discussions about Wikipedia itself on article talk pages (said meta discussions belong in Wikipedia talk namespace). You must also stay objective; the talk pages are not meant for pushing a point of view, they exist for the purpose of discussing the content of the article, which, by design, must adhere to a neutral point of view. The talk page of an article is the best place to discuss edits made to the main article, for instance, if your edit was reverted without an explanation, you could give an explanation why you oppose the edit being reverted, or, you could use the talk page to discuss another editor's edits to the same article. Finally, the talk page is the best place to make proposals and requests for comment. It is also a good idea to confirm that an issue you will discuss on the talk page hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum. Finally, please do not make personal attacks on an article talk page. Comment on the content of an edit, not the editor themselves.
 * ✅ Done


 * Wikilove/positive comments


 * Reviewee summary -

Talk pages exist with the purpose of collaborating with others to create a better encyclopedia, so being positive is a necessity. Positive comments are needed in order to maintain civil discussion and properly maintain an encyclopedia. A term that refers to being positive on Wikipedia is "WikiLove". Some ways to show WikiLove are to not bite the newcomers, "staying cool when the editing gets hot", assuming good faith (and assuming the assumption of good faith), following Wikipedia's policies, avoiding personal attacks, aiming for a neutral point of view, and forgiving and forgetting.
 * Warning templates


 * Reviewee summary -

User warning templates are used to warn users of their actions. There are four levels of warnings, 1 (general note), which assumes good faith, 2 (caution), which does not assume any faith, 3 (warning), which assumes bad faith, and generally includes "please stop", and level 4 (final warning), which also assumes bad faith and is, well, the user's final warning. There is technically another level, which is generally reserved for extreme cases of vandalism: 4im (only warning). There are also single-issue notices and warnings, which do not have levels. Examples include, , and. User warning templates should always be substituted.
 * (DON'T template the regulars)
 * ✅ Done. Passed (Pt. 3) -- <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 23:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion (Part 4)

 * WP:Articles for Deletion (AfD)


 * Reviewee summary -

Articles for deletion (or AfD) is a process by which editors can discuss if an article should be deleted, generally for seven days. If there is a clear consensus on if the article should be deleted or not, the consensus will determine the result. It should not be used in cases where the article either meets the criteria for speedy deletion, or where there is no objection expected, in which case proposed deletion should be used. Various possible outcomes include keeping, merging, redirecting, draftification/incubation, moving, userfication, or deletion. The debate is not a vote, it is a discussion in order to develop consensus ("votes" in these discussions are often called !votes, read as "not vote"). It is pointless to try to create fake accounts to increase the amount of votes for a certain side, and it is also forbidden; it is considered sockpuppetry. Also, if you oppose the deletion of an article, you can directly improve it, and if you are the nominator and the article is directly improved, you are expected to withdraw your nomination. If an editor does not withdraw their nominated, you can notify them on their talk page, but it is unlikely that they deliberately tried to avoid withdrawing their nomination, so it is best to assume good faith. After nominating an article for deletion, it is advised to transclude an article into a deletion sorting category, notify WikiProjects that may be interested in the article, and notify the primary contributors of the article. When a discussion is closed, in most cases, an administrator closes it, but, in some cases, a non-administrator can close it for a variety of reasons. In order to perform a non-admin closure, you must be a registered user. All closures, including non-admin closures, must adhere to consensus. For instance, you can't close a discussion as "draftify" when there is unanimous consensus to keep the article as is. When there is a close call, or there is no clear consensus, an administrator should close it. Also, non-admins are expected to limit their closes to decisions that they able to implement; i.e., don't mark a decision as "delete" when you are an autoconfirmed user. Finally, non-admins are expected to use the >> template to mark the fact that they are not an administrator. If the nominator withdraws their nomination, in order to perform a non-admin closure, you are expected to add a variation of the template to indicate the fact that the verdict was "speedy keep" due to the fact that the nominator withdrew their nomination, and that it was a non-admin closure. At the bottom of the page, add the template to indicate that it is over, and, on the actual article, remove the AfD template from the top, in order to indicate that the deletion discussion has ended.
 * ✅ Done.


 * Steps WP:BEFORE


 * Reviewee summary -

Before nominating an article for deletion via AfD, you should
 * 1. Read and understand various policies and guidelines related to deletion, such as the deletion, verifiability and what Wikipedia is not policies, the reliable sources guideline, and various notability guidelines.
 * 2. Perform various checks that include: checking that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion or PROD, checking the article's history for vandalism, checking to see if the article has previously been nominated for deletion and that enough time has passed since said previous nominations, and checking to see what pages link to the article.
 * 3. Considering if the article could be improved. Note that deletion is not cleanup. For instance, check to see if the article has issues in one specific area, such as notability, and add a cleanup template to the article based on the problem, or see if the article is eligible for other alternatives to deletion.
 * 4. If the main concern is notability, search for reliable independent secondary sources on the topic.
 * ✅ Done.


 * PROD and BLP PROD


 * Reviewee summary -

Proposed deletion or PROD is a process to nominate an article for uncontroversial deletion. The main reason for an article to be PROD'd is it if clearly should be deleted, and there is no objection expected to the deletion (if there is one expected, opt for articles for deletion instead), but does not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion. BLP PROD, short for "proposed deletion of biographies of living people" is a related process that specifically applies to biographies of living people that have no sources, in any form, whatsoever (references, external links, or inline citations). Keep in mind that BLP PROD and regular PROD are separate processes, if an article is declined BLP PROD or does not meet the criteria for BLP PROD, it can be nominated for regular PROD.
 * ✅ Done.


 * WP:NOQUORUM


 * Reviewee summary -

Occasionally, an AfD discussion may receive almost no (in some cases, literally no) participation. However, if the consensus from the few AfD participants is to delete, and the AfD'd article hasn't been previously declined at PROD, then the closing administrator must treat the nomination as an expired PROD, which generally leads to what is called "soft deletion", in which the article is deleted, but it can be retrieved for any reason at WP:REFUND. In other cases, the AfD discussion may be relisted, closed as no consensus, or the article may be blanked and redirect to a related topic.
 * ✅ Done.


 * CSD


 * Reviewee summary -

Speedy deletion is a special process by which an article can be nominated for deletion if and only if it meets the strict criteria for speedy deletion. It is generally used for the purpose of saving time spent on AfD discussions for articles with a very small chance of surviving one. Speedy deletion should not be used to an article that has recently survived an AfD discussion. Anyone can request speedy deletion, however, before doing so, it is a good idea to ensure that the article cannot be improved, merged, reverted to a previous revision, or handled via another alternative to deletion. Another case in which an article cannot be speedy deleted is if the article should be deleted to remove privacy breaches, in which case request oversight instead of nominating it for speedy deletion. In most cases, the creator of a page cannot remove a speedy deletion tag from the page, they should click the "contest this speedy deletion" button, but, if the article is nominated for deletion under G6 (technical deletions), G7 (author requests deletion), G8 (pages dependent on nonexistent pages), G13 (abandoned drafts), U1 (author requests deletion in user space). There are certain types of pages that must be tagged for deletion in special ways: pages that are protected, which should be tagged on their talk pages, templates, where the db template should be placed in a noinclude tag, modules, where the template must be placed within Module:Module wikitext, and CSS/JS pages, where the template should be placed within a comment. In some cases, you can nominate a page for speedy deletion after it survives a deletion discussion, if it meets any of the following speedy deletion criteria: G5 (creations by banned or blocked users), G6 (technical deletions), G7 (author requests deletion) G8 (pages dependent on nonexistent pages), G9 (office actions), G12 (copyright violations), G13 (abandoned drafts), A2 (foreign language articles on other wikis), A5 (transwikied pages), F8 (images which are on Wikimedia Commons), F9 (copyright infringement of files), or U1 (author requests deletion in userspace). Some notable criteria for speedy deletion are G1 (patent nonsense), which refers to pages whose content is completely incoherent, G2 (test pages), whose content exists for testing Wikipedia, G3 (pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes), note this only applies to blatant hoaxes, G9 (office actions), which apply to when the Wikimedia Foundation speedily deletes a page, G10 (attack pages), G11 (unambiguous advertising), G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement), A1 (no context), for very short articles which do not have sufficient context needed to identify the subject, A3 (no content), not to be confused with no context, this is for pages that have no content whatsoever, or whose content is not an actual article, for instance, an article that is only a stub template or only an external link could be A3'd, A7 (no indication of importance; people, specific animals, non-educational organizations, web content, events), where "indication of importance" refers to if the content of the article explains why the subject of the article is important; keep in mind that this does not mean notability, A9 (no indication of importance; musical recordings), A11 (obviously invented), see WP:MADEUPONEDAY, and my personal favorite criterion: U5 (blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host). Some "non-criteria"; common reasons for speedy deletion that are not actually able to justify speedy deletion, are violations of what Wikipedia is not, non-blatant hoaxes, original research, articles about non-notable subjects, articles with no indication of importance that do not meet A7, A9, or A11, and deletions reasons that are based on essays, for instance, you cannot nominate one of Wikipedia's most important policies for deletion per Reduce confusion by following policy.
 * ✅ Done. Passed (Pt. 4) --<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

 * Improvement Tagging


 * Reviewee summary -

The purpose of tagging pages is in order to warn readers of potential issues with the article, such as their structure, or their sourcing, or even their tone. The term "tag" primarily refers to cleanup templates, which are templates added to an article to notify readers about issues, and to notify editors that the article should be fixed. Adding tags to an article where the issue is not obvious is often referred to as "drive-by tagging", especially when done by editors who have not previously been involved in the article's development. In case you're tagging an issue related to a controversial or complicated issue, such as neutral point of view, you should provide a reason for the addition of the tag. An editor without a conflict of interest may remove a tag from an article if the supposed problem does not appear to exist and the talk page of the article does not have a complaint regarding the issue. In most non-obvious cases (such as removing a "current election" template from an election that ended several weeks ago), it is best for an editor removing the tag to add a note on the talk page of the artticle, and to describe the reasoning for the removal in the edit summary for the removal. Inline sourcing or verifiability-related tags should not be removed if the statement the tag is attached to is "challenged or likely to be challenged", per the verifiability policy. If the editor who placed the tag makes a complaint on the talk page, an editor seeking to remove the tag should, instead of boldly removing the tag, should discuss with the original creator of the tag on the talk page about if the tag should be removed or not. If there is a disagreement over if the tag should be removed or not, then the discussion should continue in order to establish consensus. Sometimes, the placement of a tag may cause a dispute. Sometimes, an editor may add a tag to an article in bad faith, or remove one for the same reason. Placing too many tags on an article is often referred to as "tag-bombing", which can discourage newcomers. The addition of tags, itself, does not help Wikipedia, it is more asking for someone else to help the article for you. Generally, an article should not have more than three tabs, and it is best to reserve the tags for the most serious and obvious problems before the more obscure problems. It is pointless to add multiple tags with the same (or similar) meanings (for instance: don't add Dead end and Underlinked to the same page at the same time) It is best to use specific tags over using general tags, and if there is no specific tag to be used, just use the cleanup tag and, in an edit summary or comment, describe the specific problem to be addressed.
 * Relative to the footnote, yes, and kudos to you for such an astute observation. In controversial topic areas, tagging by involved editors could be construed as disruptive or tendentious, which is why having the extended reviewer right is an important responsibility. Abuse of that right will quickly result in removal; it's one of the reasons we take NPP training seriously.
 * ✅ Done.


 * Categorizing


 * Reviewee summary -

WP:CAT - The purpose of categories is to make it easier for Wikipedians to navigate through related articles. There are multiples ways to do this, along with categories there are navigation templates (navboxes) and lists. Several naming conventions apply, such as that abbreviations should not be used in category titles, that titles should not contain the word "notable", that categories made by WikiProjects must contain the term "WikiProject" in the title, and that categories used for Wikipedia administration should contain the word Wikipedia if necessary to avoid confusion with other categories. Once you have determined an appropriate title and parent category, you can create the category, and you do so by adding an article to the category, which should show up as a red link. Then click on the red link to create the category. A category should have text that explains exactly what type of pages should be placed in it and can contain links to other articles and/or categories. All articles should be categorized in some way (specifically articles, not redirects, talk pages, or user pages). An article in a category should be placed in the most specific and accurate category. For instance, an article for a very specific US town should not be added to the category for places in general, but the category for US towns. Categorization of articles must be verifiable; there should be a verifiable reason such as a source (in the article not the category itself, categories cannot contain sources). Generally, reliable sources must consistently demonstrate that the subject of an article has a certain characteristic and therefore should be categorized in a certain way. An article should never maintain itself in a red-linked category; the category should either be created or the article should be removed from the category. Categories should be based on the content of the article rather than the type of article. Categories that are directly about the subject of an article are called eponymous categories, and the article mentioned must be the main article of the eponymous category. Files and images can also be categorized, often in a larger category, but are usually seperated from the actual articles, or added to a subcategory specifically for files. There are two types of categories (based on who uses them): administrative and content. Administrative categories exist for the purpose of editors to categorize articles based on their states or cleanup templates they have. Content categories contain articles with the intent of helping readers categorize pages. User pages do not belong in most categories, however there are some "user categories" which are subcategories of Category:Wikipedians. Some templates (such as the Twinkle userbox on my user page) adds transcluded pages to a category. It is discouraged to add articles to administrative categories instead of their talk pages, but if actual articles are to be added to these categories, then they should be hidden using the template. Sometimes "sort keys" are used to change the order of articles in categories, such as to change whether or not diacritics affect the order of articles, leading articles ("The Beatles" would be under B instead of T), and certain punctuation marks (apostrophes, hyphens and periods). Sometimes, Greek letters may be used in order to add articles after the main list, for instance sigma refers to stubs, beta refers to books, delta refers to documention for templates, and omega is for WikiProjects. There are two types of categories based on the content of them: topic and set. Topic categories are for pages on general topics, while set categories are for, well, sets. Occasionally categories may be within other categories (subcategorization), if the contents of a subcategory also logically belong in a parent category. Some subcategories are the children of multiple parent categories. A category can never be a subcategory of its own subcategory. Some categories consist entirely of subcategories for ease of use (this is called diffusing). Some subcategories do not exist for the purpose of diffusing, and these categories should not logically be placed in both their parent category and the subcategory.

Question 1: How can categorization maintain a neutral point of view?
 * Example: we wouldn't categorize Catholicism under the category Cults

Question 2: Why is it discouraged to add actual articles to administrative categories?
 * See WP:ADMINP
 * ✅ Done.


 * Stub


 * Reviewee summary -

Stub sorting refers to sorting stubs (very short articles that do not provide sufficient encyclopedic coverage on a subject) into categories. Stub sorting is important because if stubs are not sorted, it may be hard to find the stubs and therefore improve them. Adding a stub to a category such as a cleanup category can help, but it is more effective to sort stubs into stub categories, as it is more likely for an expert to see stubs on their specific field. A way to do this is to add a field-specific stub tag to an article (which should never be substituted) at the bottom of it. Subcategories of Category:Stubs are necessary both to attract experts, but they also diffuse the full category into several subcategories. Once the article is expanded with help from experts, the article can be reclassified as Start-Class, the stub templates can be removed, and the article can be removed from a stub subcategory. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Passed (Pt. 5)
 * , congratulations for passing all 5 Parts of this NPP training exercise. You may now apply for the New page reviewer user right. I am notifying that you have completed and passed NPP training. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 10:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)