User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/Test/Go Phightins!
Final Exam for Go Phightins
[edit]Congratulations on reaching your final exam. Please follow all instructions carefully.
This exam was begun at 20:22, November 16. It will end at 20:22, November 23.
Practical Test
[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.
Done - Patrol at least 4 pages in new page patrol Diffs:
- [1] Well, this article has since been deleted, but I guess it was OK.
- [2] Only a redirect, but good helpful edit with the creator's misunderstanding of redirects.
- [3] Good on this one, you added a tag.
- [4] Again, alright, with a tag added and the page marked patrolled.
- [5] This time you added yet another tag but again it was correct.
- I'm giving 9/10 for this part. Great effort!
If reviewing articles submitted to WP:AFC counts, here are a few examples. Otherwise, I'll get to NPP in a day or two. Go Phightins! 05:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done - Participate in at least two AfD debates with reasoned comments. Diffs:
- Impressed, although it wasn't an awful lot you added to the discussion. 7/10
- Done - Cleanup at least three articles (i.e., resolve at least one noted problem on at least three articles and remove that tag) Diffs:
- [8] Yes, good cleanup knowledge demonstrated.
- A series of five edits; the diff is the before and after I think you managed good by yourself again here, although I'm not quite seeing why adding two or three refs needs five different edits.
- [9] Adding sources, while needed, isn't strictly cleanup, but I'll let you get away with it.
- 8/10 Wondered away a bit on a couple, but still good at what you did do.
- Done - Make at least 5 anti-vandal reversions and warn the vandals appropriately. Diffs:
- [10] That edit wasn't helpful, good revert. And you can cheat a little by using Huggle because it will warn the vandals for you!
- [11] Now here perhaps they were trying to be constructive, but still it was revertable and you did good.
- [12] Those delinquents... need reverting. Good job there.
- [13] Definite, clear vandalism there. Great go at it.
- [14] Bubbly letters and fake names - not needed, reverted! And warned too.
- Simply great, but really Huggle did most of the work. For that, I'm docking a point I would have given if you had done it all manually. 9/10
- Done - Join a project associated with your interests. Diffs: [15] Good choice for you
- 10/10
In the event you attempt to do a task above but a bot beats you the the task a ridiculously obscene number of times, please make a note of that here. I've tried to do similar tasks before and been incredibly frustrated by the automatic bots. You should be able to demonstrate that you put an honest effort into completing the task.
Pratical test score: 43/50
Written Test
[edit]Please leave your response to each question where indicated. Rcsprinter will check your responses at the end of the exam. Note that for some questions there may be multiple correct answers - as long as a response is in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it will be marked correct.
- What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
- A: Consensus is the model we use on Wikipedia to make most decisions. Consensus is a general agreement among editors as to what is the proper course of action in a situation. It's not a vote, and it does not mean that everyone has to agree, but consensus needs to address dissenting editors' reasons for dissent and respect Wiki-policy. It is usually achieved through discussion. 20:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Got it in one. 5/5
- A: Consensus is the model we use on Wikipedia to make most decisions. Consensus is a general agreement among editors as to what is the proper course of action in a situation. It's not a vote, and it does not mean that everyone has to agree, but consensus needs to address dissenting editors' reasons for dissent and respect Wiki-policy. It is usually achieved through discussion. 20:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- You add a PROD tag to an article as it doesn't seem to be notable, but it gets removed by the author ten minutes later. You don't believe he's addressed the notability concerns, so what is one step you could take from here?
- A: I would almost always take this to AfD; that way other editors can get involved and we can achieve a consensus as to what to do with the article. 20:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- That is the right thing to do, 5/5. Turning into quite a high scorer.
- A: I would almost always take this to AfD; that way other editors can get involved and we can achieve a consensus as to what to do with the article. 20:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Flip that situation around. You come across a PROD that you don't think should be deleted, and remove the tag. Your edit is reverted and you get a nasty note on your talk page. What do you do?
- A: I would try to assume good faith. I'd remind the other editor that you can only tag an article for PROD once. If the editor was a newbie who wasn't aware of what the policies were, I might do any or all of the following:
- Direct him to the Teahouse
- Link applicable policies
- Procedurally nominate the article for AfD leaving a note as to why and !voting keep, but I would only do that in extenuating circumstances. 20:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- They are good ideas. Well done for remembering to AGF. 4/5
- A: I would try to assume good faith. I'd remind the other editor that you can only tag an article for PROD once. If the editor was a newbie who wasn't aware of what the policies were, I might do any or all of the following:
- When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
- A: a.) after the user has received sufficient warnings (usually at least three or four) b.) if it's clearly a vandalism only account or c.) after two instances of vandalism, both being heinous BLP violations (e.g., enough that the first received an only warning template) 20:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- That would be good enough for any administrator. 4/5
- A: a.) after the user has received sufficient warnings (usually at least three or four) b.) if it's clearly a vandalism only account or c.) after two instances of vandalism, both being heinous BLP violations (e.g., enough that the first received an only warning template) 20:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- You mark a non-notable article for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Moments later, you notice in Recent Changes that the page has been blanked by the author. What do you do?
- A: Remove the A7 tag and replace it with a G7 as the author blanked the page. 20:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, why not? The simplest things are often the best. 4/5
- A: Remove the A7 tag and replace it with a G7 as the author blanked the page. 20:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- You revert something thinking it's vandalism, but you get a rather irate reply on your talk page: "That's not vandalism! This is a serious fact covered my many research articles! How dare you accuse me of (insert type of vandalism here, as well as more complaints)!" You check, and sure enough, he's right. What do you do?
- A: First I would rectify the situation by reverting myself on the page in question. Then, I would apologize profusely to the editor in question and probably give him a barnstar or some virtual food item. And then I would walk away from my computer for a few minutes to get mentally ready to edit again. And then I'd resume editing. 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you say so. 3/5
- A: First I would rectify the situation by reverting myself on the page in question. Then, I would apologize profusely to the editor in question and probably give him a barnstar or some virtual food item. And then I would walk away from my computer for a few minutes to get mentally ready to edit again. And then I'd resume editing. 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I found an image on a website of a person that could be really useful in an article I'm writing about them. The website doesn't say the image is copyrighted, so what should I do to upload it to Wikipedia?
- A: Verifying that the image is free should be the first step. Once you do so, you could upload it under fair use using the Upload Wizard, but to reiterate determining its licensing would be key so you don't violate copyright. 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- That would indeed be the safest route. 5/5
- A: Verifying that the image is free should be the first step. Once you do so, you could upload it under fair use using the Upload Wizard, but to reiterate determining its licensing would be key so you don't violate copyright. 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- You've been a frequent contributor to an article and have helped get it so it's almost ready for nomination as a featured article. You log in one day to find that it's just been put up for AfD by a new user. Nobody has commented on the debate yet, so what should you do?
- A: I would probably request a speedy keep and ask an administrator to take a look. I would then go to the user's talk page and explain (assuming good faith) the deletion processes and why nominating that article for deletion was not necessary. 20:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Quite. 5/55
- A: I would probably request a speedy keep and ask an administrator to take a look. I would then go to the user's talk page and explain (assuming good faith) the deletion processes and why nominating that article for deletion was not necessary. 20:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- If I wrote a template "foo" with this code, what would be displayed when I called it like this: {{subst:foo|article=Lorem Ipsum|Thanks again!}}?
Thanks for helping with [[{{{article|that article}}}]]! It's a great help. {{{1|}}} <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~- A: Thanks again for helping with Lorem Ipsum. It's a great help. (I think--again, still haven't finished the templates lesson) 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty much, but the signature should have been added on the end because there were four tildes, weren't there? 3/5
- A: Thanks again for helping with Lorem Ipsum. It's a great help. (I think--again, still haven't finished the templates lesson) 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're working with an new editor to cleanup a page they created. During the course of your discussions, you realize that the content of the article is an exact copy of a textbook the other editor is reading off of. What should you do?
- A: I would probably remove the content in question and try to explain copyright violations to the user. I would then probably work with him to rephrase/paraphrase the content so it could be included, if it was quality content. 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Generally the best route. 4/5
- A: I would probably remove the content in question and try to explain copyright violations to the user. I would then probably work with him to rephrase/paraphrase the content so it could be included, if it was quality content. 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Overall for written test: 42/50
Questions and excuses
[edit]If you have any problems during the exam, please post them here. Good luck!
:Where are the practical tasks? I'm not seeing them...Go Phightins! 20:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Done --Go Phightins! 16:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Results
[edit]Overall 85% - PASS Well done. You've passed the course. I'll put the barnstar on your page and we can work out where we want to go from here. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 15:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)