User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/Tattoodwaitress Final Exam
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q2. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Western Michigan University/Wikipedia (2013 Q2)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Final Exam
[edit]Congratulations on reaching your final exam. Please follow all instructions carefully.
This exam was begun at 15:07, August 17. It will end at 15:07, August 24.
Practical Exam
[edit]Following are your tasks for the practical exam. When a task is completed, replace the {{Not done}} template with {{Done}}. You may also use {{Doing}} to indicate a task that is currently underway. All tasks must be marked completed before the time stated above. Even if you have done these tasks in the past, please do them again during this exam period.
- The second was was deleted, so I'm assuming that you gave it a CSD tag, the rest were good, too!
Done Nominate at least one article for deletion in AFD with a well-reasoned nomination explaining why the article should be deleted. Post the link to the debate here: [[6]] I hope I did tall the steps properly.
- Uhhhh.... bad choice. Sounded pretty notable to me, but hey, it was a NfD, not a CSD or PROD, and you did do it properly. However, anything that merits a speedy keep probably should've never been nominated (not that I haven't made that mistake - I have). 3/5
- Well-reasoned opinions - even if one was the minority view, it was well-thought-out.
- Done Tag at least one article for speedy deletion. Diff: [9] I forgot to get the diff to the article at the time of nomination for speedy delete and the article has already been deleted. I am pasting the link to the user talk page where I notified the user of the nomination. I am hoping this is good enough but if not will redo and in my travels today will try to find another one regardless. I am having a hard time finding and tagging them before other more experienced editors get to them first.
- 'Twas deleted, so I'm assuming it was a good one. No worries about delays.
- Done Cleanup at least two articles (e.g., resolve at least one problem noted with a maintenance tag and remove said maintenance tag) Diffs: [10] & [11](this just shows the tag deleted, forgot to delete it when saving changes, [12] I did also remember to remove the "linkrot" tag, after i had already changed the fixes.
- Very good. These are the mundane sorts of edits that NEED to be done but nobody does.
- Done Revert at least eight instances of vandalism and warn the vandals appropriately. Post only the diffs of the reversions themselves, not the warnings. Diffs: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] Note: This ended up being the subject of a bit of controversy and it has not as yet to be resolved and it took me so long to go back and get the dif that I hope I grabbed the right one, [18], [19], [20]
- I'm not seeing any issues with your reversions here other than your warnings to editors. Try to use Twinkle to do the reversion so that you'll get an appropriate user warning message. -1/each (-8)
- Done Join a Wiki-Project of your choosing. Diff: [21]
- Cool! Didn't know that one existed!
- Done Extra credit! Upload a file of some kind (picture, sound, etc.) with correct licensing information to either Wikipedia using the File Upload Wizard or the Wikimedia Commons. Add the item to an article and post the diff of you adding it to the article here. [22] added to article link to file here (using the : so it does not actually insert the image here) :File:Blue nose pit bull puppy.jpg
- Great work - it looks like they decided to keep it, too, so it wasn't just "for your exam," but beneficial, as well! +5
In the event you attempt to do a task above but a bot beats you the the task a ridiculously obscene number of times, please make a note of that here. I've tried to do similar tasks before and been incredibly frustrated by the automatic bots. You should be able to demonstrate that you put an honest effort into completing the task. 95/100
Written Exam
[edit]- DoneWhat is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
- A: Consensus is the main way that wikipedia meets its goals. It is the way that decisions are made regarding controversial stuff including edit conflicts or policy changes. Consensus is the overall opinion of the community (those who choose to participate in the "argument" or "debate") regarding many different topics. Can include discussion about policies, edits, blocks, deletions and more. This does not always mean the decision is unanimous (although that would be great) nor is it a "vote". A consensus is reached through discussion where editors voice there opinions, concerns, valid points, etc preferably in an amicable manner. Relating it to the policies? Hmm, there is a higher standard set for policies and guidelines therefore prior consensus is taken into account regarding any changes that are made to policies or guidelines since the policies and guidelines have already been established by prior consensus. Policies and guideline changes really should be discussed first since they are so important. And steps to change them should be made slowly as to promote healthier communication regarding the changes.
- Good.
- A: Consensus is the main way that wikipedia meets its goals. It is the way that decisions are made regarding controversial stuff including edit conflicts or policy changes. Consensus is the overall opinion of the community (those who choose to participate in the "argument" or "debate") regarding many different topics. Can include discussion about policies, edits, blocks, deletions and more. This does not always mean the decision is unanimous (although that would be great) nor is it a "vote". A consensus is reached through discussion where editors voice there opinions, concerns, valid points, etc preferably in an amicable manner. Relating it to the policies? Hmm, there is a higher standard set for policies and guidelines therefore prior consensus is taken into account regarding any changes that are made to policies or guidelines since the policies and guidelines have already been established by prior consensus. Policies and guideline changes really should be discussed first since they are so important. And steps to change them should be made slowly as to promote healthier communication regarding the changes.
- DoneYou add a PROD tag to an article as it doesn't seem to be notable, but it gets removed by the author ten minutes later. You don't believe he's addressed the notability concerns, so what is one step you could take from here?
- A:Number one, do not readd the PROD tag, its a one time use only and his removal of the tag is an objection. I should add or modify the tag to old prod full so that its not re PROD (if they have not done that already) and initiate a conversation regarding the un-addressed notability issue and attempt to come to an agreement, help to improve the article myself, or if the subject is definitely not notable, and never will be, nominate the article using the AFD starting a discussion and voicing my concerns about the article in the debate there. Furthermore, always when there is a conflict between editors I should remain calm and follow all policies and guidelines regarding conflict resolution, seeking help from more experienced editors when and if needed, and always try to be helpful when i can by reminding or referring to information on Wikipedia that the other editor might not know.
- Yes-ish? I think what you were trying to say is that you'd start an AfD, all the rest was also correct. 4/5
- A:Number one, do not readd the PROD tag, its a one time use only and his removal of the tag is an objection. I should add or modify the tag to old prod full so that its not re PROD (if they have not done that already) and initiate a conversation regarding the un-addressed notability issue and attempt to come to an agreement, help to improve the article myself, or if the subject is definitely not notable, and never will be, nominate the article using the AFD starting a discussion and voicing my concerns about the article in the debate there. Furthermore, always when there is a conflict between editors I should remain calm and follow all policies and guidelines regarding conflict resolution, seeking help from more experienced editors when and if needed, and always try to be helpful when i can by reminding or referring to information on Wikipedia that the other editor might not know.
- DoneFlip that situation around. You come across a PROD that you don't think should be deleted, and remove the tag. Your edit is reverted and you get a nasty note on your talk page. What do you do?
- A:My removal of the prod is an objection and the prod tag should not have been replaced on the article and the editor should not be rude by leaving nasty messages on my talk page, however, I do not have to react to the behavior. I should stay calm and initiate conversation with the editor regarding the reasons why I think the article should be kept (even if i did do that already with the deprod initially). Again using the conflict resolution steps, and staying in the top three of the pyramid. If the other editor still thinks it should be deleted the decision can be made if a discussion is needed to add the article to AFD discussion (which is what should be done rather than replacing the deleted prod tag), and I can join the discussion with my reasons to keep. I can also address the rudeness if needed, again by following the appropriate steps. Sometimes its a better idea to ask someone else to step in to remind the editor to be kind. Sometimes its just best to not engage the rude behavior. Just by initiating a clear, concise, healthy conversation seeking resolution to the core issue the anger can be dissipated without further action needed. Furthermore, I can take steps to address the concerns in the original PROD by making changes to improve the article myself.
- A pretty much perfect answer. I especially liked your final sentence.
- A:My removal of the prod is an objection and the prod tag should not have been replaced on the article and the editor should not be rude by leaving nasty messages on my talk page, however, I do not have to react to the behavior. I should stay calm and initiate conversation with the editor regarding the reasons why I think the article should be kept (even if i did do that already with the deprod initially). Again using the conflict resolution steps, and staying in the top three of the pyramid. If the other editor still thinks it should be deleted the decision can be made if a discussion is needed to add the article to AFD discussion (which is what should be done rather than replacing the deleted prod tag), and I can join the discussion with my reasons to keep. I can also address the rudeness if needed, again by following the appropriate steps. Sometimes its a better idea to ask someone else to step in to remind the editor to be kind. Sometimes its just best to not engage the rude behavior. Just by initiating a clear, concise, healthy conversation seeking resolution to the core issue the anger can be dissipated without further action needed. Furthermore, I can take steps to address the concerns in the original PROD by making changes to improve the article myself.
- DoneDefine vandalism. When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
- A: Vandalism is a deliberate attempt (edits made in good faith are not vandalism) to ruin Wikipedia by blanking sections or pages, adding nonsense or cuss words, false information, or anything else that will hurt the integrity of the project. After warning the vandal numerous times going through the levels of warning (note: you do not have to use all levels nor do you have to start at level 1) and if the offender repeatedly vandalizes even after being warned you report the behavior to an admin. There are 4 levels and numerous templates to use when tagging for vandalism intentionally and not intentional. Additionally, when finding vandalism you need to assess whether is was good faith or not first. Then proceed to remove vandalism and warn the vandal appropriately.
- Good.
- A: Vandalism is a deliberate attempt (edits made in good faith are not vandalism) to ruin Wikipedia by blanking sections or pages, adding nonsense or cuss words, false information, or anything else that will hurt the integrity of the project. After warning the vandal numerous times going through the levels of warning (note: you do not have to use all levels nor do you have to start at level 1) and if the offender repeatedly vandalizes even after being warned you report the behavior to an admin. There are 4 levels and numerous templates to use when tagging for vandalism intentionally and not intentional. Additionally, when finding vandalism you need to assess whether is was good faith or not first. Then proceed to remove vandalism and warn the vandal appropriately.
- DoneYou mark a non-notable article for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Moments later, you notice in Recent Changes that the page has been blanked by the author. What do you do?
- A: The blanked page by author indicates okay to to delete so it can be deleted with being contested. I don't have delete rights but I can change the delete request to {db-blanked} to indicate it was blanked by the author and they have indicated delete request.
- Yup, they're just adding more criteria to delete it.
- A: The blanked page by author indicates okay to to delete so it can be deleted with being contested. I don't have delete rights but I can change the delete request to {db-blanked} to indicate it was blanked by the author and they have indicated delete request.
- DoneYou revert something thinking it's vandalism, but you get a rather irate reply on your talk page: "That's not vandalism! This is a serious fact covered my many research articles! How dare you accuse me of (insert type of vandalism here, as well as more complaints)!" You check, and sure enough, he's right. What do you do?
- A:Stay calm, polite, and respectful regardless of how people treat me. Set a good example for others. Admit the error and apologize for the mistake, revert the edit (if he has not done so already) and maybe send him a plate of cookies. If needed I can use the progression of steps to resolve conflicts such as the editor assist, 3rd opinion, mediation, and so on. I can also involve another editor such as yourself so that you could remind them to be polite when dealing with conflicts.
- Perfect. Apologies are best. We've all been down this road.
- A:Stay calm, polite, and respectful regardless of how people treat me. Set a good example for others. Admit the error and apologize for the mistake, revert the edit (if he has not done so already) and maybe send him a plate of cookies. If needed I can use the progression of steps to resolve conflicts such as the editor assist, 3rd opinion, mediation, and so on. I can also involve another editor such as yourself so that you could remind them to be polite when dealing with conflicts.
- DoneI found an image on a website of a person that could be really useful in an article I'm writing about them. The website doesn't say the image is copyrighted, so what should I do to upload it to Wikipedia?
- A:Number one, anything you find out there on the web is copyrighted unless it specifically states that it has been released for use and the copyright holder his/herself has done this. Number two, because it is of a person, if I did want to use it I would have to contact the copyright holder and get their permission to use it first. Preferably having them upload the file and filling out the release form and selecting the license type, themselves. The photo being of a person does not qualify under the fair use clause as there is always another way to get an image (if it is a living person that is), if the person is no longer living then that changes things just a tiny bit.
- 3/5 Mostly right (hence most of the points), but partially wrong. It could still technically be fair use even if its's a person. There's not always a way to get a different picture. And I'm actually not sure (meaning actually not sure, not that I'm saying you're wrong) if being dead makes a difference in fair use, but I know that the age of the picture does.
- A:Number one, anything you find out there on the web is copyrighted unless it specifically states that it has been released for use and the copyright holder his/herself has done this. Number two, because it is of a person, if I did want to use it I would have to contact the copyright holder and get their permission to use it first. Preferably having them upload the file and filling out the release form and selecting the license type, themselves. The photo being of a person does not qualify under the fair use clause as there is always another way to get an image (if it is a living person that is), if the person is no longer living then that changes things just a tiny bit.
- DoneYou've been a frequent contributor to an article and have helped get it so it's almost ready for nomination as a featured article. You log in one day to find that it's just been put up for AfD by a new user. Nobody has commented on the debate yet, so what should you do?
- A:Well number one I don't remove the afd notice. I can take part in the debate by responding to the reasons given for the nomination at the afd debate section voting to keep the article with well thought out reasons of why to keep said article. Doing this in a manner that promotes healthy discussion. Not responding to the nomination in a negative manner. Keeping in the top three levels of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement pyramid.
- Indeed! Very diplomatic. You might also look into trying for a speedy keep.
- A:Well number one I don't remove the afd notice. I can take part in the debate by responding to the reasons given for the nomination at the afd debate section voting to keep the article with well thought out reasons of why to keep said article. Doing this in a manner that promotes healthy discussion. Not responding to the nomination in a negative manner. Keeping in the top three levels of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement pyramid.
- DoneHow does the child protection policy apply to editors like yourself and what are two ways you can protect yourself?
- A: Unsure as to exactly what you mean by protect myself as I am not a child. However, the way it would apply to me personally would only be if I came across an instance of a possible pedophile here on wiki. To protect myself I should never make public accusations here but to report my beliefs to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. if I suspect a possible pedophile, never engage in inappropriate behavior here as an editor so that I might never be an assumed pedophile. Always be on my best adult behavior, and never give out personally identifiable information about myself such as real name, address, phone number, where i work exactly etc.
- ArbCom might be necessary. I would hope not, though. What I was mostly looking here was for oversight and revdel of personal information. In most jurisdictions and on WP, child protection is very important. This question wasn't implying that you're a child, it was asking what you'd do to help protect them. You largely got that in your comments about personally identifiable information. Reporting suspected pedophiles is also a good policy. WP:EMERGENCY comes to mind.
- A: Unsure as to exactly what you mean by protect myself as I am not a child. However, the way it would apply to me personally would only be if I came across an instance of a possible pedophile here on wiki. To protect myself I should never make public accusations here but to report my beliefs to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. if I suspect a possible pedophile, never engage in inappropriate behavior here as an editor so that I might never be an assumed pedophile. Always be on my best adult behavior, and never give out personally identifiable information about myself such as real name, address, phone number, where i work exactly etc.
- DoneYou're working with an new editor to cleanup a page they created. During the course of your discussions, you realize that the content of the article is an exact copy of a textbook the other editor is reading off of. What should you do?
- A:Voice concerns about the exact copy and gently remind the new editor about the policies and guidelines regarding copyrights and use of copyrighted material. Refer them to the Wikipedia:Copyrights page and the sections Contributors rights and obligations and WP:COPYOTHERS. Help the new editor to reword the content so as to avoid a copyright vio and also explain how to appropriately attribute small bits of text that might be used to the copyright holder by using quotes, refs and appropriate inline citations. Never bite the newbie, rather be helpful and educational.
- Correct, no biting. You may have to have some of the plagiarism removed using REVDEL.
- A:Voice concerns about the exact copy and gently remind the new editor about the policies and guidelines regarding copyrights and use of copyrighted material. Refer them to the Wikipedia:Copyrights page and the sections Contributors rights and obligations and WP:COPYOTHERS. Help the new editor to reword the content so as to avoid a copyright vio and also explain how to appropriately attribute small bits of text that might be used to the copyright holder by using quotes, refs and appropriate inline citations. Never bite the newbie, rather be helpful and educational.
- 47/50
- Total: 142/150
Questions, Comments, Excuses, Thoughts, etc.
[edit]Post any of the aforementioned types of queries in this section.
- Question re: question 9. Jackson is there anyway to clarify the question (only if I am way off base with my answer)? What exactly are you looking for? Protect myself from what I guess is my question, as i am neither a child nor a pedophile. If not, no problem, I tried to cover all the bases as to what you might be talking about but then it might appear that I am "all over the place".
- See comments above.
- Thought: Yay, almost there, three more to complete. Trying really hard to get this finished before school starts in exactly one week.
- Okay.
- Realized after saying I was completed that I never redid the speedy delete question. Truth is that I had nominated two for speedy delete and forgot both times. One was a non english one (محمد حافظ)and the other was Rachel de Souza (which I had chosen the wrong reason for speedy delete but that was deleted already too. I had a conversation at the teahouse regarding the lost diff for the non english speedy deleted article. You can see it here if needed:Lost dif There two other editors posted the diff however my permissions do not allow me to view it but maybe you can. I was having a hard time with the deletion questions but sought help from another experienced editor and the in-depth explanation i got from them helped a whole bunch. Basically my issues where when to choose afd over the speedy delete or prod and then trying to choose the reason from the list of choices that are given when using twinkle.
- Nope, I can't, either, but I believe you. One can always see the deletion log, which is accessible from the article's page to editors. Admins can see the REVDELs.
- (how come all the numbers are number 1?)
- Use #: or #::, etc.
Next step
[edit]You've finished the final examination. You may immediately being working on your final practical, which is the very last component of your adoption. In fact, you may have already finished it. Unlike the other assignments, this merely involves the completion of items on the practical rather than answering questions. Click here to view the practical and how to submit answers.