User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
User:Sirdog
  Passed June 1, 2022
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
Instructions: Sirdog, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:
If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page. Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting. Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace. It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Notability (Pt. 1)Notability is a litmus test applied to topics to ascertain if it should have it's own article on Wikipedia. As a rule, such topics must have reliable and independent sources report on it. This is necessary to avoid the addition of information haphazardly to the encyclopedia. Notability is determined if an article meets an SNG for a given sub-set of topics, or the GNG for all other topics, and it does not fall under that which Wikipedia is not (e.g a dictionary, a soapbox for promotion, a directory, a blog, etc). An important distinction is that not all topics that meet notability will have their own articles, but all topics that meet notability technically qualify for their own article. The community may decide that a topic is better served, even if notable, as merged into another article - among other options.
The GNG is the written guideline that lays out the things to look for explicitly when evaluating notability. As written, a topic is presumed to be suitable for it's own article if it has significant coverage in sources that are reliable and the sources are independent from the subject. Presumed means there is an assumption an article may be suitable, but it is not a promise. Consensus may be reached that the topic violates WP:NOT or that another action aside from a standalone article is most appropriate. Significant coverage means that the topic is addressed explicitly and in some level of detail. Original research should not be necessary to extract meaning from sources. This can get nuanced, however. This means a source should not superficially mention a topic, but nor does the source need to make the topic the main course to classify as "significant". Reliability means the source needs oversight regarding the information published so that Wikipedians can evaluate such notability verifiably. If the sources themselves are not reliable, then it is borderline impossible to evaluate notability. Sources should always be secondary - meaning a source that is analyzing or assessing a primary source (such as the topic in question being evaluated for notability). There is no brightline number of sources, as they vary in their quality and depth, but as a general rule there should be multiple. Independent excludes from consideration any source that is produced or closely affiliated to the topic. For example, press releases requested by the Final Fantasy XIV team would not be eligible as a source proving notability.
As time has gone on the community has come to a consensus as to what classifies as "notable" within particular topic areas such as film, academia, books, etc. The accepted guidelines are numerous, and links to them can be found at WP:NOTABILITY. Generally speaking, SNGs define verifiable criteria which has historically shown that notability-establishing sourcing exists. Thus, topics which pass SNG scrutiny more often then not merit an article. That does not mean an article passing SNG cannot be deleted or merged should an exception to the trend exist. SNGs, by their specific nature, also allow for granting greater assistance to editors - such as giving spelled out examples of sources and coverage (e.g for books, there is a footnote that explicitly goes over types of sites and sources which are and aren't good for meeting the "non-trivial" phrasing of criterion 1) to assist in determining notability. Similarly, the SNGs may assist in clarifying certain things that may intuitively seem notable but actually aren't (e.g the mere fact an individual is in an elected office does not within of itself mean they are notable; that typical applies at a state/province level or higher alongside other qualifiers).
As Wikipedia has increased in size, scope, and international reach organizations have become extremely interested in having both a) articles about them on Wikipedia and b) having such articles speak of them favorably. This is very problematic, as Wikipedia is not a promotional platform and it strongly discourages (and in certain cases prohibits) those with a conflict of interest from editing such topics. As such, the SNG on organizations and companies was developed to iron down such articles in Wikipedia's policies. It is split, generally, into the primary and alternative criteria. For an organization to be classified as notable it needs to meet the primary or alternate criteria or meet GNG on it's own. The primary criteria is basically the GNG but with various safeguards and explanations so as to combat the issues mentioned above. Particularly, it emphasizes higher scrutiny on sources to avoid gaming. Thus, by it's nature, it lists various caveats. One such example is that significant sources may cover an organization due to them possibly participating in illegal conduct. Because the conduct of the organization - and not the organization itself - is the topic, such sources are generally not permitted to be used as establishing notability. The alternative criteria go over various other scenarios that apply to specific types of organizations, such as both commercial and non-commercial organizations, schools, and the like. For example, in regards to religious organizations, just because a building that such an organization congregates in may be notable doesn't mean the organization is notable.
My initial steps would be something to the effect of:
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)This is a guideline I'm quite familiar with as a vandalism fighter. It is the codified belief that all editors should assume that all other editors, regardless of perceived experience or hostility, are trying to in some way improve the encyclopedia (even if actions taken may be damaging in the short-term) unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. This does not preclude the ability to give criticism, however, as it is possible to criticize the actions of an editor without presuming their motives are malicious. It is also possible that editors may genuinely be trying to help but they lack the knowledge or know-how to do so within Wikipedia's current framework. Care should be taken when citing this guideline, as the citation of it within the wrong context may within of itself be a negative assumption. Wikipedia is widely used, with many search engines indexing it's results to dynamically display what Wikipedia says to a user without them even having to visit the site. Because this can have a very real and dramatic effect on people if covered by Wikipedia, WP:BLP is an extremely strict set of policies that go over how editors are required to cover an individual who is currently alive. Sourcing needs to be immaculate, the tone should be written with care and be the pinnacle of neutrality, any statement that most likely will be or has been challenged must be removed immediately if unsourced, any criticism or praise given to a subject must be balanced as is appropriate and reported by sources, primary sources are a big no-no for proving identifiable qualities, and so on. The policy is a bit vast, but I believe those were the really big sticking points.
The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia which presents information neutrally and in a formal tone. A conflict of interest is when an editor participates in topics on Wikipedia that they are closely related to. This tends to undermine the ability for an editor to write formally or neutrally, as doing so about topics closely related may cause the editor to write in a favorable (or unfavorable) manner when they need to be remaining neutral. A COI can take, generally, 2 forms. The first form is when an editor is just closely related; the topic may be family member, a client of theirs, or a business they run or work for. The second form is when an editor is being monetarily compensated by an entity to perform edits on Wikipedia. Many businesses may pay contractors, or their own employees, to edit their relevant Wikipedia article. If the article doesn't yet exist, the individual may be paid to create it. This historically has caused issues on Wikipedia as the goals of the employer, and thus employee, tend to be in direct conflict with Wikipedia's. For the 2nd form, the terms of service as set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation requires that such users disclose the following: what entity is paying them, who the client of the payment is, and any other affiliation that may be appropriate to the topic. For example, a Google employee paid to edit the relevant article would state that they are paid by Google and that the payment is so that they edit that article. Failure to do is classified as undisclosed paid editing which may result in sanctions from an administrator if it persists. Any level of a COI should be disclosed, however, the difference is that for paid editing the Wikimedia Foundation mandates the disclosure.
Copyright refers to the owner of a creative work owning the exclusive right to copy and distribute said work. On Wikipedia, all edits are licensed under CC BY-SA and the GFDL, which is performed automatically after any edit is published per the relevant notice on the edit (or confirm edit) screen. Where things get complicated (to put it lightly) is when Wikipedia wishes to use the creative work of others for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. To do so the creative work must be within the public domain, the relevant copyright has to be explicitly disowned, the copyright has to be under a compatible license, or explicit permission from the owner of the copyright must be obtained. It is also possible to use such works without permission, but under very specific circumstances (such as fair use). If copyrighted material is hosted on Wikipedia without permission or legal justification it constitutes a copyright violation, which is a big non-no for many reasons - not least of which is the legal liability for Wikipedia. It is imperative that such material be removed from Wikipedia immediately and in most cases it is appropriate for an administrator to perform revision deletion. While it is generally not easy to be blocked on Wikipedia, repeatedly posting copyrighted material is one such way. To re-distribute text on Wikipedia it requires credit be given to the authors in one 3 ways: a link to the Wikipedia page, a link to a stable online copy which is freely accessible and gives credit to an equivalent degree as a history page, or a list of all authors is provided. When it comes to any amount of media, how to handle giving appropriate credit would be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the copyright of that media. Linking to another website that possesses a copyrighted work does not constitute a copyright violation, however, websites that are violating copyright themselves should not be linked to as that also has similar legal liabilities. Wikipedians also need to take into account copyright law from nations that aren't the United States.
This is fairly straightforward: a hoax is an attempt to deceive in audience into believing that something false is real. This has occasionally been done on Wikipedia, and gone undetected for years, as a means of demonstrating that Wikipedia is falsifiable. This is an inevitable consequence of Wikipedia being a website that anyone can edit and, as of today, it isn't something that can be prevented with certainty. There is no need to prove this, and it only leads to read world consequences - in extreme cases, it could be fatal. Editors - NPR's especially - need to be cognizant of if something is a hoax and, if it is believed or verified to be, to mark it as such and/or mark it for speedy deletion. The above said, there is a fundamental difference between an article written as a hoax and an article describing a hoax for encyclopedic value. The latter is acceptable; the former is not.
Also pretty straightforward: an attack page is a page on Wikipedia, regardless of namespace, wherein it's sole purpose is to threaten, demean, or disparage the subject. Such pages are eligible for speedy deletion under G10 and should be marked as such if found, blanked as a courtesy, and offending editor(s) warned. If the subject is notable, and the page is in article space, then an editor should revert the page to the last neutral version. If such a version does not exist, the page should be deleted by an administrator outright, and a stub made to replace it. This is especially urgent if the subject is a BLP. In a situation where content from an article is split to a separate one for whatever reason, that page would generally not be classified as an attack page, even if a majority of the content reflects negatively upon the subject. All BLP requirements would still apply, though, if applicable.
Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
It has been demonstrated that a majority of new content on the English Wikipedia is developed by new users. In contrast, there are a lot of policies surrounding content editing (from notability, to the manual of style, to picking reliable sources, and so on). Not to mention more universally applicable setbacks, such as computer literacy. New page reviewers are in a unique position where they will communicate with such editors with high frequency. It's imperative for reviewers to be kind. If an article is good to go, they should send a message of support and thanks for the editor's time. If an article has issues, or necessitates deletion or removal from article space, the reviewer should go over the errors, give feedback on how to improve (usually in the form of directing them to the relevant policies), and above all else encourage them to continue. A shining example of such behavior could be found in Oshwah (within reason; his capacity for kindness and AGF is arguably inhuman, lol).
Wikipedia is big. As time has gone on, and as the membership has waxed and waned, it was found to be beneficial to create templates for generic notifications of various things. The ones I am most familiar with are the vandalism warning templates used in WP:RCP (which I remember with fondness substituting by hand until I learned that Twinkle and RedWarn existed). Generally, they are useful for repetitious tasks or for tasks wherein policy mandates a notification (such as WP:ANI or making sure all leveled warnings are issued for WP:AIV). However, in most cases - and especially in NPP - it is preferred to give non-templated responses when possible. New users aren't stupid; they can tell if a message is coming from someone trying to help or if it is a "corporatized" generic response. They will be far more likely to become inflamed, or simply leave outright, in the latter scenario. Such notifications can also be long-winded and intimidating (such as the copyright warnings). Regular users are even less stupid, and it is against best practice to give them templates at all unless mandated by a process or policy.
When speaking with new users (or with anyone, really, as most article creators are probably invested in said article) it is important to speak in a friendly, welcoming tone so as to avoid coming off as WP:BITEy or impersonal, otherwise, the editor may be encouraged to abandon the article or the project. Information should be distilled clearly. It is trivially easy for an experienced Wikipedian to drown a newcomer is jargon, shortcuts, and complicated policies which can be extremely overwhelming. Using simple language in favor of complex language, when appropriate, to get across an idea is also ideal - not all editors are fluent or native in English, and these editors are not in any way less valid than others so long as there is not a competence issue. Being knowledgeable in the relevant policy and processes is paramount; misinterpretation or a complete lack of understanding can result in a waste of administrator time (e.g improper CSD), cause a negative experience for the creator that is unnecessary (e.g rejecting an article on false pretenses when in reality it is acceptable, or vice versa), waste community time (e.g improper AfD), among other poor results.
When communicating with other editors, and especially newcomers, it is very tempting to only focus on the bad. However, this can lead to the feeling that the only result of a conversation will be poor and that the positive contributions of an editor outside of whatever the current topic of the day is aren't relevant. This would be incorrect, as any constructive edit made to the encyclopedia is worthy of praise, because it is the work of the volunteers that have made Wikipedia what it is today. As such, it is important to find ways to compliment and thank fellow editors for their positive contributions from time to time, rather than just making corrections or criticisms. These go a long way towards creating a positive rapport, respect, and trust between editors. WikiLove is an informal yet widely accepted[citation needed] community doctrine to aggressively be nice with one another and wholesomely thank other editors for a wide array of things. Not least of which being an editor's very existence on the project. This can be accomplished by a simple talk page message all the way to long lists of templates dedicated to this purpose.
Warning templates are a specific type of notification meant to advise an editor that a particular behavior is undesirable and that it needs to stop and/or be corrected. They are most commonly used in anti-vandalism to systematically warn vandalizers against their behavior. After a level 4 warning (or 4im) is issued and ignored, an administrator will block on sight or in response to a report to WP:AIV. That said, there are warning templates for an extremely wide-array of scenarios. In the case of NPP, relevant warnings to issue may include (but aren't limited to): warning editors about copyvio, advising page creator that a page is up for CSD/PROD/XfD, warning editor for creating an attack page, warning an editor about a potential COI, warning an editor about UPE, advising editors tagging articles to avoid doing so when done improperly, warning editors about BLP violations, and so on. These warnings are important so that, in the event an administrator becomes involved, it can be demonstrated that an editor was advised to avoid X and continued to do so anyway. That said, issuing such warnings with templates is not wholly necessary (barring exemptions), and NPP's should evaluate what is most appropriate based on the circumstances.
Deletion (Pt. 4)Articles for deletion is a venue where editors can formally discuss whether or not an article should remain on Wikipedia or if another course of action would be appropriate (e.g merging, redirecting, userfying, draftifying, etc). AfD, like most processes on Wikipedia, is not a vote. It is standard practice to preface a comment with Support or some other indicator of the desired result, but this should be followed with an argument. Arguments that discuss how an article meets or fails a particular policy take precedence over arguments that do not. AfDs discussions remain listed for 7 full days before being evaluated by an uninvolved administrator. Said administrator will evaluate the consensus reached and close the discussion with such evaluation being provided. Non-administrators may also do this, but it comes with various caveats. WP:BEFORE is a section of the AfD policy which goes over various things editors should check for prior to submitting an article to AfD. These have been developed so as to minimize the number of articles submitted to AfD that are there improperly, or where the outcome is so glaringly obvious that the AfD process is not a productive use of editor time. First, the editor should be informed regarding deletion policy so they know what the valid grounds for deletion are and what alternatives exist. They should then also inform themselves regarding the content policies that are primarily used in deletion debates: notability (both GNG and SNG), verifiability, reliable sourcing, and WP:NOT. Second, the editor should perform a myriad of checks to ensure that AfD is necessary and not another process. Is CSD/PROD more appropriate? Has the article been nominated before and thus the concerns currently held have already been addressed? Is the article's current state due to vandalism/disruption which simple reversion will immediately correct? Has enough time passed for renomination (if applicable)? Etcetera, etcetera. Third, the editor should entertain the idea of improving the article and salvaging it - if reasonable and applicable - rather than simply sending it to the chopping block. Or, if a fix is well supported by policy or is otherwise obvious, perhaps the editor can simply do so themselves per WP:BOLD rather than forcing a consensus be established (e.g if it is clear the topic itself isn't notable, merging it into another article may be a solution the editor takes unilaterally). Finally, if the primary concern is sourcing, can the editor find that sourcing themselves? The minimum check expected prior to an AfD is a regular Google search, a Google books search, a Google news search, and a Google scholar search (if the topic relates to academia). Proposed deletion is a process editors can utilize to mark an article that they believe is not in compliance with a relevant policy, but also does not meet CSD criteria, for deletion. This is designed for articles where there is a low chance a consensus will be needed to ascertain what should happen to it; ergo, it won't be controversial. Once the template is placed, if any editor whatsoever objects (including the article creator), the process is aborted and may not be restarted. The reason for objection is immaterial, even if in bad faith, with 2 exceptions: a) the removal of the template (a typical sign of objection) is clearly not an attempt to object (e.g vandalism), or b) if the removal is performed by a banned user or a sockpuppet. If the editor that placed the PROD still believes deletion is warranted despite an objector's rationale, the process would need to escalate to AfD. If the PROD template remains on the page for 7 days uncontested an administrator will delete the page. WP:BLPPROD is a process to delete an article about a living person that has no sources whatsoever in any form (e.g external links, inline citation, further reading, etc) that support any statement made within the article. This is not used for any other purpose; such as determining notability or correcting any violation of a WP:BLP guideline. In order for the tag to be removed, at least one reliable source must be added to support some statement made within the article. If the tag is removed with no sources added, it may be returned with the expiration date not being affected. If there is contention as to the reliability of a newly provided source, the article should be directed to AfD. If the nominator believes the article still warrants deletion for any other reason, then a relevant deletion process should be utilized. The timeline to remove the tag is the same as PROD; after 7 days an administrator will delete the article if the requirements for the tag's removal are not met. In both processes, administrators are just like any other editor (this is always the case, but is sometimes forgettable). They may decide to object to a PROD or provide a source for BLPPROD rather than delete.
Soft deletion is a form of procedural deletion where anyone may request the page be undeleted indiscriminately at WP:REFUND. This is generally used when a deletion discussion has very little participation. The closing administrator is directed to make the fact the deletion is soft clear. A possible alternative to soft deletion is a blank and redirection if no one suggests that deletion is appropriate per established community consensus.
The criteria for speedy deletion refer to a very regimented set of criterion where administrators have consensus to bypass PROD or XfD and simply delete a page unilaterally. Out of all of the deletion processes, this is the fastest (relevant to how fast an administrator sees the CSD tag). The process is started by an editor wishing to delete something placing the relevant template on the page, along with notifying the page creator and any major contributors. There are criteria for general deletion (GX), which apply to all pages; article (AX), which only applies to articles; redirects (RX), which only apply to redirect pages; files (FX), which only apply to files; categories (CX), which only apply to categories; user pages (UX), which apply to user pages; and portals (PX), which apply to pages that act as a "main page" for a broad subjects. I know it was kinda redundant for me to list them out like this; I mainly did it to ingrain the categories internally. I have bolded "very regimented" because it is an unfortunately common practice for editors, when evaluating to CSD something, to stretch the criterion when it otherwise does not apply. Some examples include:
The creator of a page is prohibited from removing a CSD template unless it falls under G6, G7, G8, G13, G14, or U1. They can instead contest the deletion on the article talk page which will be taken into account once an administrator reviews it. If an uninvolved editor removes the template, the deletion is classified as contested, and another deletion process should be selected (with potential common-sense exceptions being G9, G12, and U1).
Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)Wikipedia has a lot of templates. One kind of template are improvement tags. These can be assigned to an article to alert readers (and thus, editors) of various problems that may exist with the article. This can be about copy-editing, copyright violations (both real and suspected), plot summaries being too long, an article being written like an advertisement, and many more. There has been contention in the community as to whether or not these templates are useful, as it would be preferred if the editor WP:BOLDly corrected whatever the errors. However, the general consensus at present is that - presuming an editor has already decided to not fix the problem - it's better to tag it than do nothing. As editors are volunteers it is their free choice as to whether or not to fix a problem. It's also possible the problem requires knowledge or expertise, both in Wikipedia policy or topic knowledge, which the editor lacks (CCI is a common example of requiring basically both). Any editor without a COI to the article may remove any tag if they cannot find the error that is described. However, unless it was a glaringly obvious tag (e.g lack of categorization), a talk page note is encouraged anytime that this is done. It is possible to overtag an article, which is problematic within itself, as it may discourage editors or readers from doing anything. This is because it gives off the perception the article is irredeemable. At most only 3 tags should be on an article at once, and these should be reserved for the most severe problems, even if other problems exist. The less severe problems can come later; there isn't a deadline. When tagging, the most specific tag should be selected for a given problem. The template {{cleanup}} is nice and all, but it is very vague and puts the onus on future editors to find errors when they have technically already been seen. Does the article need sections? Is the view not balanced? Are there not enough citations? Etcetera, etcetera. Categorization is a function on Wikipedia wherein if readers know a defining characteristic of multiple topics and want to find related articles, they can. All articles on Wikipedia should have a minimum of a single category and this category should be the most specific branch of category available. For example, when categorizing Abraham Lincoln, using Category:19th-century American politicians is not as ideal as using Category:19th-century presidents of the United States (though in this case the actual article has both). Any category assigned to an article should be verifiable, remain neutral, and be a defining characteristic of the subject. For example, randomly categorizing someone with Category:Leaders of the Ku Klux Klan without reliable sources commonly associating the topic with such a category is defamatory. Categorization is physically performed by adding [[Category:CATEGORY_NAME_HERE]] to the bottom of an article page, though nowadays, people mainly use HotCat. A stub is classified as an article that has some useful information but lacks coverage expected from a typical encyclopedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting is a project designed to organize stubs into specific stub-categories. This is done so as to increase the likelihood of editors finding stubs that may interest them and expanding upon them, rather than letting the article sit in the void and wither away. Many articles moved to mainspace by new users have a high probability of being stubs to start off with, and so NPR's are in a particularly good position to perform this function; knocking out 2 birds with 1 stone.
NPP ExerciseI will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed. State of Article at Review: [1]
2. Emma Bolger State of Article at Review: [2]
State of Article at Review: [6]
4. Dave Rosser State of Article at Review:[7]
5. WWE Hall of Fame (2023) Article was redirected at time of review. Moved back to first revision prior to this, being [8].
Ok, Sirdog - here's your first 5. Happy reviewing!! Oh, and don't hesitate to boldly edit if you've the mind to do so. Atsme 💬 📧 14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Additional 5 exercisesThis go-round, please go ahead and take the appropriate action for each article, and provide an explanation. I think you are really making me earn this green tick mark, and I both love and loathe you for it. What an evil article to place on my evaluations. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 So, in all honesty - for me - this article is unreviewable. The knowledge is so above my paygrade that I cannot answer most of the questions on the chart. I can't attempt to find my own references because, while I do get hits for That said, I had an epiphany about an hour or so into this review to check the page history to see if it's ever had references. Lo and behold, I find [9]. I can't evaluate the source, however it was added by a currently active editor with a Ph.D in mathematics. Odds are, the reference is appropriate. Is it notability establishing? I've absolutely zero clue. But, it does get the article a reference. Official Answer: I've restored the reference to the article and adjusted the tag to say that more references could be added. Were I to have the NPR right, I would mark patrolled at this time, repeating basically the same chain of events from 2011. Looking at a couple of other mathematics related articles they also appear to be light on citations. The article has already been linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and - considering the article's revivor, D.Lazard, is a very experienced editor (e.g mostly mainspace contributions, 25K edits, mathematics professional, no blocks, good AfD stats, has been drug to WP:ANI but appears to have been in the right, etc) - I do not believe I am doing the encyclopedia harm by allowing it to remain under their stewardship. I totally get if this answer is completely inappropriate, in which case I'll just take the loss, but I simply would not go for any kind of deletion; at worst, I'd draftify. PROD would obviously get contested; no CSD criterion apply (or any that could apply I cannot do with certainty, for example, I've no clue whatsoever if this article is making a claim of significance - nor do I believe any administrator regularly patrolling would be comfortable touching it with a 10 foot pole); and I would be deeply uncomfortable going to AfD, as I cannot perform a WP:BEFORE. So, this is actually a fairly straight forward review, don't need to think about it much. A much welcome change of pace from the above article, to be sure. It appears an IP editor decided to just undo a redirect with information that appears to be accurate, but is held in the article OAED Vocational College shooting. So, I've simply reverted the IP editor. Presuming the page need a patrolling, if I had the rights, I would do so. Easy, peasy. While it is possible (but improbable) that Dimitris could be notable enough for their own article, at that point I would just be writing the article myself, which would be outside the scope of NPR. 8. Leah Felder Most all searches for Leah online are talking about her divorce from (or marriage to) Brandon Jenner, who is in the Jenner family. Unlike Dave Ross, which I can understand the notability there, these sources don't mention things that she has done specifically whilst talking about these events. Most everything that may establish notability is purely on the basis that she was with Brandon or in the band Brandon & Leah. While the band Brandon & Leah meets notability, Leah herself as a musician or as a person is not notable. She wouldn't meet any criterion under WP:NSINGER; the closest would be criterion 6, as last time, but she's only been in 1 band. All other criterion would apply to the band, but not her (e.g billboard charts, creating music for a television show, appearing as a guest on a television show, etc). My official answer is I've restored the redirect to Brandon & Leah which was undone a couple of days back.
So, this is a borderline case (atleast to me). On one hand, WP:ANYBIO states that if a person In this case, I would favor inclusion. There could be resources that I cannot evaluate that show more notability, which would make sense considering this person's position, and I'm comfortable with ANYBIO getting 2 out of 3 criterion met. I've tagged for a request of more citations, and I'd mark patrolled.
10. Three Days (Pat Green song) Earwig screamed about a potential copyright violation with basically the entirety of the existing prose, the violation originating at [10]. Our article was created on day 1 with that exact line of text in 2016. The website according to https://carbondate.cs.odu.edu/#https://www.lyrics.com/ was made in 1996. I am physically incapable of determing when the specific lyrics page was made (and it wasn't a lack of trying; I used the carbon date website, I tried searching the source code of the website, I tried running a year search in Google - the works). All rights on this website are reserved. about 45 minutes later I actually went to the CCI section of the Wikimedia Community Discord and ask for a 2nd opinion. DanCherek responded and said that lyrics.com is notorious from pulling Wikipedia text to it's website, and that it apparently used to have some kind of "More info" button that would declare this, but it appears to be absent. So, in any case, I don't believe a legitimate copyright violation is present. In my view this song is a violation of WP:NSONG, specifically (bold added by me):
This song has only been charted once, and fair enough the charting seems to be a good one, but it's a single charting. A cursory Google search (which is already impossible for a term known as "Three Days") doesn't pull anything else up. This will most likely permanently be a stub. TenPoundHammer came to the same conclusion, and so redirected it, but Donaldd23 reverted the redirect stating I've started a discussion on the talk page. It may have been more expedient to simply nominate for AfD, but if Donaldd23 perhaps simply forgot a policy or is otherwise neutral and concurs with my and Hammer's assessment (or demonstrates notability), I think that would generally be preferable. If there isn't a response in a reasonable time period, I'll then take to AfD.
DiscussionOk, Sirdog - I've added 5 more exercises for you, only this time go ahead and follow through with an appropriate action for each article, and provide an explanation for each in the reviews above. Atsme 💬 📧 10:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) EvaluationSirdog passed the course, and did quite well on the reviews. He has all the makings of being a top notch NPP reviewer. CONGRATULATIONS, Sirdog!!🥂🎉 🙌🏻 The evaluation is complete, and you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. Be sure to add a link to this review. You can also request NPP user rights directly from one of the participating administrators. Atsme 💬 📧 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Tips
UserboxThis userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
|
.svg){kind=small}
User:BusterD
| Passed June 4, 2022
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
Instructions: BusterD, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:
If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page. Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting. Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace. It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 09:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Notability (Pt. 1)Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia encompassing all essential subjects useful and necessary for humans to preserve for the benefit of humankind. Because the pedia is created and maintained by human beings over time, imperfection and incompletion may remain. The policies of notability and verifiability help protect pedia readers from incorrect, misleading and incomplete information. Notability is a primary guiding policy which helps wikipedians determine appropriate choices for article creation and retention. A notable subject is one deemed worthy of an article in a comprehensive encyclopedia of subjects current, ancient, pre-historical, and everywhen between, determined by guideline, policy and sourcing. New article insertions by less experienced editors are guided by Articles for Creation and New Page Patrol processes. More experienced editors may apply for autopatrolled permission, based on prior Wikipedia contributions and good judgement, which presumes the editor's contribution in good faith, even when the new page itself may be incomplete or otherwise lacking. When we disagree about notability, we examine the article in various deletion-related discussions. Egregious violations of notability may be quickly deleted by administrators under various preset criteria classifications. General Notability Guideline refers to a standard for pagespace inclusion on Wikipedia. An article which meets the GNG is one which is anchored with significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject. This guideline normally refers to sources and citation already extant, but may sometimes allow the presumption of sources known or shown to have existed and not yet applied to the page. The GNG is a helpful benchmark which applies across all content areas. Articles which meet this guideline are almost always "kept" in deletion discussions, though the evaluation of the quality of sources may prove contentious in some discussions. I believe these were formerly called secondary guidelines; Specific Notability Guidelines refer to standards for inclusion in discrete and diverse content areas. While such standards always refer back to the GNG (the page possessing adequate significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject), SNGs may at some times presume the availability of reliable sources given the subject's notability, acting in an inclusive manner. An American professional football player may be deemed to be presumed notable if they have played in one professional contest. In some cases, SNGs may prescribe a certain quality of sourcing required, for example biographies of living subjects or medical topics where weak sources may cause inadvertent harm to anyone, the guideline serving an exclusionary purpose. An article on Covid-19 requires WP:MEDRS-level sourcing, requiring high-level medical-quality citation and proscribing popular culture and most journalism from useful sources included. In my opinion, the decision of the WikiProject Military History, the largest most active WikiProject, to deprecate WP:SOLDIER signaled the decline of the specific notability guidelines' importance, as it regards presumed inclusion. That discussion concluded, based on experience with tens of thousands of deletion discussions, that while the SNG helped a nascent Wikipedia quickly appreciate the presumed notability of a vast number of possible subject candidates, as the pedia matured, notability on articles on project-related subjects were better judged by found sources, not by somewhat arbitrary and arguable standards for inclusion based on rank, awards, size of command and other more subjective measurements.
Some SNGs might tend to protect Wikipedia from connected insertion and undue influence. WP:NEVENT protects the encyclopedia from everyday events often sourced with routine news or a lack of perspective. All events seem notable in the moment, but relying on today's sources is a poor way to accurately judge the longterm significance of today's events. WP:ORG helps wikipedians to decide whether business large or small qualify for pagespace on Wikipedia. An article on a multi-billion dollar company may only possess sources which come from news releases, the business section of the newspaper, or business-service websites (what might be considered routine news). In many cases a company or organization article may have been created or significantly affected by a connected, conflicted or undeclared paid editor. The SNG may help sort wheat from chaff. A single World Cup game, a sporting event with hundreds of millions of watchers and thousands of reliable sources, may not be determined to deserve its own article, per WP:Routine coverage, but instead be subsumed into the greater 2022 FIFA World Cup article.
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)Looking from a purely social view, Wikipedia is a collaboration of effort from a constantly fluctuating body of volunteers. A few joined us just today, some left forever this morning. Nobody except WMF representatives and UPEs (see below) are paid to be here. I am here editing this page because I want to be here. I choose to be here, typing these very words. Acting from willingness is a truly empowering experience, similar and perhaps related to the "self-actualized" level of Maslow's hierarchy. Issues which arise that tend to reduce editor willingness are important for the community (and the foundation) to address. An underlying context for my willingness is a recognition that my efforts are going to be taken in good faith by all others making similar efforts. My co-volunteers benefit by my assuming good faith in their actions. Learning to feel the warm embrace of good faith has been a healing and validating experience for me. Fifteen years ago I answered a few questions from a freelance journalist about the powerful transformative influence which following and embracing AGF has had on my entire life. On the merits, Assuming Good Faith is a behavioral guideline, the heart of our community's civility policy. It is certainly wiser longterm to assume mere incompetence or honest disagreement than ascribing malicious intent. Interpreting intent is never a great starting place for free exchange of ideas, and if written in talk-space or edit summary may actually cause the writer to be admonished, blocked or banned. When I see behavior which I may well characterize as bad behavior, assuming good faith gives me a superior platform for discussion. We may be shown we merely misread or didn't understand the context of disagreement. We may find our original position was itself in error. We may discover either position might shift based on issues presented during good faith discussion. On the other hand, in a comparatively rare situation we may find prohibited behavior, socking, COI, gaming the system. Because we have done our best to eliminate alternative solutions, the community can feel fully justified when confronted with actual bad behavior to stomp that shit out. (apologies for BOLD use of irregular language here) Once upon a time, Wikipedia was the wild, wild west. Note, in many ways this is a comparatively recent time. I could write an article about Plumber butt and it would stay up for many months before somebody redirected it. This was true across all content areas (although the previous anecdote was totally false). And then we promoted lots of folks to admin but we still had serious issues. In 2005 John Seigenthaler had an article written about him and it contained demonstrably false information on his page. The defamatory info stayed there for four months before it was changed, and the change edit itself was reverted as an actual copyright violation. The backlash from this very public incident (and others like it) shamed our community into moving the whole pile forward, creating new criteria for required sourcing on all pages, but most specifically Biographies of Living (and recently deceased) People. The BLP movement was a community admission that wikipedians tended to act in a quite inclusionary way, at the time being seen as seeming to prefer quantity over quality. As someone wiser than I has said, "The key turning point was the increase in emphasis on WP:VERIFY." In its current incarnation, BLP is a policy which protects a subset of topics, who are people who may suffer personal harm or cost because VERIFY, NPOV, and OR were not sufficiently honored. BLP is unusual in that it urges all those who see something not only to say something but provides them agency to do something, that is, boldly remove any contentious material not supported by RS, sorting out re-insertion later. "First, do no harm" has become an important behavioral guide for me, as a result of seeing other similar discussions in various content realms. On re-reading, it occurred to me that I should note BLP policy is applied over ALL pagespace types, including talk pages and WP processes. Just because the article is about an organization, for example, doesn't eliminate the need to pay close attention to what the article says about living persons connected with the organization. In deletion procedures, we must continue to protect living subjects in process discussions. The need to avoid harm to living people is essential to the pedia's continued function. Wikipedia may fail occasionally to adequately cover recent and unrecognized subjects; however unfortunate such inadequacies may prove to be, a public view that Wikipedia is a platform for hate (or even unbalance) would doom the entire project.
Every new editor comes into the pedia with an interest in some subject matter; if they were uninterested they wouldn't have edited or logged in at all. When a contributor's personal interest comes into conflict with the good of Wikipedia, we all must choose a balanced approach. Part of balance is declaring the interest at the outset of disagreement. An aide to a politician with an existing article cannot be a fair judge of what is and isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia article about the politician. They can however be extremely helpful by declaring their interest and then using their expert knowledge of extant sources, providing at least on one side of the story we do have RS which improves the page. The owner of a business or their representative is hardly in a position of neutrality, but may be an excellent resource about the sources available about the business, and may be relied on IF they openly declare their interest and otherwise operate under COI guidance. Paid editors may be useful contributors, when they announce paid and connected status then follow the behavioral guidelines regarding such contributions. Especially these days when many of the most obvious encyclopedic articles have already been commenced, expert knowledge of existing sources by connected editors should be welcomed, so long as the relevant guidelines are followed. When connected and paid contributors do not obey the COI and PE policies, we all have the same problem. Historically many such contributors are inexperienced wikipedians and make obvious tells which signal involvement. Some connected contributors have carefully crafted a number of sleeper accounts which are kept available in case the used accounts are discovered and blocked. I myself served as mentor to a paid editor User:CorporateM (a declared public relations professional) for a number of years, and he's a much better editor than I. By my observation, CM kept all the promises he made me during our mentorship, always announcing his connection and making quite excellent talk page edit requests which endeared him even to many opponents of PE. I'm extremely proud of him and he is a wikifriend who was always striving to do the right thing, according to the public relations professional code of ethics. Gradually the PE rules grew so restrictive and the passion against PE grew so intense (and almost irrational) he was unable to continue his effort. Why did I help this fellow? He was trying to do the right thing. I figured if we could make it work, we might make it work for others. He and I met during the aborted WP:WikiProject Cooperation, an attempt to find a way to integrate declared paid editors into pagespace work. I'm not so worried about those guys, though they ARE a threat to Wikipedia. I'm far more concerned about sophisticated and experienced UPEs who represent political organizations, think tanks, intelligence agencies and consulting companies who've been able to completely conceal their long-term work against a backdrop of normal editing. I suspect some became admins back in the heyday and remain active now. I have zero proof of any such involvement, but I'm not a complete idiot. Any dedicated agent of such orgs could easily just edit away from their interest over time and present an honest front. It would just take time, and the cool kids from St. Petersburg and Langley have lots of that. Sorry for the rant.  IMHO for the purpose of New Page Patrol the title for this particular section might better link to Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The linked copyright article refers to Wikipedia's place in global copyright law, en.wikipedia being a "copyleft" source material. In the U.S. text material taken from Wikipedia and used elsewhere normally carries a Creative Commons license allowing free re-use and encouraging attribution. This mean wikipedians have a responsibility to verify the content we present under the CC actually belongs to us. On Wikipedia plagiarism with no attribution and clear copyvios can be immediately deleted, even when that means completely "stubifying" or even speedily deleting the page. I'll confess this is an area on Wikipedia with which I do not have a ton of experience, my work on 19th century biography largely immune from blatant copyvios, though I occasionally see articles in which text has been freely used from another (often U.S. government source). Images are quite another matter. Images which are uploaded or moved to Wiki Commons are normally those available for free use, under CC licenses or in the public domain. Images on available only on an individual language wikipedia may not have free use or CC licenses, especially in regard to images uploaded under fair use claims. Fair use images are allowed sometimes in limited ways (reduced resolution, reduced size) but discouraged. I myself have used a few screen capture images found on various websites as fair use to illustrate articles about deceased subjects. I only did so when I was unable to find any other way of depicting a subject no longer able to be imaged. I have not worked too much in the copyright-specific boards or talk pages. This is an area in which I could use improvement and study. When I perform DYK reviews I utilize Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and I can see the value of using tools like this to better use my time on such tasks. I would interested in hearing comments from you here helping me prioritize how to process NPP using this vital and essential policy.
Hoaxes are articles which are false but created in order to perpetuate the falsehood; these are much harder to perpetrate these days than in the days of the wild, wild west. This is largely because of the effectiveness of volunteers and admins who have built working New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation systems. Autopatrol-permitted editors are unlikely to make such hoax pages and other page creators must deal with these two systems designed to screen for this exact issue. I'm sure New Page patrollers are likely to see attempted hoaxes. If I were reviewing, I would follow sourcing to meet WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY. I'm not a pop culture guy so some things I think might see as hoaxy may turn out to be verifiable. Especially in the realm of BLPs and ORGs, contributors may create pages or page sections which may devote themselves to injuring or discrediting their subjects. This sort of material may be obvious or it may be better hidden. I had an experience during DYK reviewing which I took to a trusted admin for advice. I was at the time totally focussed on the reliability of the sources, but the admin pointed out that each data point presented by sources gave the appearance of negative activity. When I confronted the DYK nominator saying I wanted to take the sources to RS/N within minutes they withdrew the nom. An old BLP page in which I was involved Vicki Iseman has recently seen new activity. Iseman is a DC lobbyist about whom in 2008 both the NYTimes and the WashPost connected to the late Senator John McCain, the Times in a slightly more lurid manner. Iseman sued the Times but the case was quietly settled for no money. Last weekend a former McCain aide admitted covering up an affair between the lobbyist and the Senator, something the Times only previously implied. I raise this experience because the John McCain lobbyist controversy was an article created directly by removal of all controversial detail from the BLP page. When both pages faced 2008-09 deletion processes both were kept, the BLP article "delete" outcome overturned by a still current admin who decided the best arguments came from a subset of !voters who claimed the BLP was entirely positive since all the negative material had been removed to the event page. The admin concluded deleting the BLP would have the effect of removing the balancing positive material.
Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
I'm a big fan of welcome templates, especially when accompanied by brief notes about edits with which I agreed. When I was more frequently using the New Pages feed and the curation tool, I often declined to provide any feedback to creators, my effort in reviewing already taking more time than I had budgeted (living in my own head, a bad sign). On the other hand, picking up every stray kitten may tend to have profound negative influence on one's agency. In retrospect, I think I cheated myself of positive contact with potential new wikipedians and perhaps slightly deprived those wikipedians knowing of my fondness for the project. During deletion discussions, I'm direct with page creators, assuming good faith in an adversarial process. I can see this is an area where I can study others' positive modeling and improve my behaviors. That said, I need to give myself permission to put this kitten down as well. Perhaps that is why I've asked you to help me with my reviewing proficiency. As you can easily see, brevity is occasionally my target but rarely a bullseye I hit.
Perhaps you are talking about the many tagging functions of the curation tool? Curation tags are, like warning templates, useful in theory and occasionally helpful in practice. The tags help provide a sort of checklist of possible shortcomings easy and important to identify. Drive-by tagging is in my opinion a buzz-kill, even on new pages. (stray kittens again) They do however provide a time-effective neutral way of approaching new page shortcomings through their directness and specificity (get some citation, link to some other pagespace, add some categories). A personal comment may have the warmth a new page contributor needs to feel validated. Like redirects, personal specific comments are cheap (and disproportionately helpful).
Working daily on Wikipedia has helped me with some things. Being able to express myself in neutral language is one area where I always want to improve. I once worked with a gentleman of charm and competence whose example in talking to clients was (and is) admirable. His gift/skill is in acknowledging the need without saying yes. It is an extraordinary thing to hear him work. I hope my tone is encyclopedic, even on talk pages. There are closers on Wikipedia like Sandstein and Drmies with whom I often disagree but admire for their direct neutral tone when analyzing the process. I am great with disagreement; disagreement helps me discover whole new worlds of things of which I wouldn't have been aware otherwise. However, (inside my heart of hearts) I take issue when someone in public policy or politics says they've been "clear", which to me signals an unwillingness to entertain doubts, a refusal to accept alternative positions. "Clear": "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (from Princess Bride)
I thank a bunch of people, often when I disagree with them but admire their BOLD. I am certain that I've passed out more barnstars than I've received. No surprise, I was living a gnomish wiki-existence for some time and heck for a while was living as a wiki-hermit. It is surprising how often one can turn adversaries into wikifriends by simply extending some humanity, patience, and willingness to admit being in the wrong.
I have been fortunate in some of my early wikifriends in that after a brief period of performing vandalism patrol someone I admire asked me to always utilize the escalating user warning templates, which I have done religiously (perhaps overly so in retrospect) ever since. I sometimes struggle to find exactly the right tone, but I often (when I think it will help) add a personal note explaining my issues with the user's behaviors. I understand we're not supposed to template regulars, but a blocking template is a template, so we do have exceptions and shouldn't shy away from use if we think the practiced neutral tone an existing template may provide will get us the attention of the user in question. IMHO, we're attempting to stop the bad behavior and engage the editor responsible. We should affect the outcome, but do the least possible damage. I'm going to wax a little Kung Fu here: "Perceive the way of nature and no force of man can harm you. Do not meet a wave head on: avoid it. You do not have to stop force: it is easier to redirect it. Learn more ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced."
NPP Exercise BusterD, I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed. Atsme 💬 📧 16:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC) I'm going to take liberty with my mentor and just startout by testing the flowchart, merely responding in my first impulse yes or no to the questions asked. This will constitute my initial feel for the page. I'd like to engage with you about my initial readings before using the curation tool, marking appropriately.. But this first few times I'm going strictly by the checklist, to help me focus onto a healthy habit. I realize this may be Heisenberg Principle territory, but neither of us is likely to leave a page hanging just because I'm drilling. BusterD (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
1. Matt Kivel
.jpeg) Atsme 💬 📧 17:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Critical Thinking
3. List of Minister-Presidents of Brandenburg
6. Hungary women's national under-19 volleyball team, France women's national under-19 volleyball team, Romania women's national under-19 volleyball team You got me here. I'm a bit baffled by the naming which doesn't appear to match. I'm also concerned about 404 errors from one of the few citations, given the living people involved. There's a point I'm supposed to get here but it's staring me right between the eyes. Normally national sports teams even if age-delimited are notable subjects. Sports is not my normal range, though I'm working on womens' basketball this last year (dragged in by the spiritual power of Paige Bueckers). What am I missing?
7. Organized crime in London, Ontario Another corrected copyvio by a blocked user but there's a some good stuff here, if lots of it uncited. Sources are listed if not completely milked yet. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
8. Américo Mendoza Mori I actually like this little translation. The Dora the Explorer puts this into the realm of notable, because of the sources it provided. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
9. Anti-Assyrian sentiment Also no longer a copy vio. There are apparently a lot of these Anti-XXX sentiment articles and they seem like a lot of syth to me. Various tags and project banners. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC) 10. General Tests of English Language Proficiency Apparently no longer a copy vio but could certainly use more citation and cats. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Deletion (Pt. 4)A place I've largely avoided recently. I'd prefer to make assertion and it's a bit of a firehose/timeconsumer. I'm much better at assessing consensus today than I was back in the day. Not spent enough time with closures in general, I'll concede. WP:AFD is the main page for content deletion processes with links to relevant policies and procedures; transcluded are the list of ongoing deletion processes, archived by date. An article is nominated for deletion by any registered user, the discussion transcluded in time sequence. While many wikipedians continue to treat this process as a !vote, AfD is one of those places where the adversarial side of consensus-building discussion really shines. A well-prepared contributor may accomplish a great deal by saying very little, making pithy assertion with links. Seven days' discussion (of widely varying participation) gives wikipedians time and platform for spirited debate on the merits of the original assertion, and while the subject is under direct discussion the page is often improved and previously unrecognized sources presented. Sources presented at AfD may save or rescue (my word choice is intentional) the page and instead of being deleted, it is either �relisted or kept or merged or redirected or userfied or drafted (I might have missed one). We are expected to make our close by evaluating the entire discussion by the general direction of the conversation, the sample size, and the strength of argument (as assessed by the closer). A closing comment is often very helpful, especially when the discussion has been justifiably contentious. If there is disagreement about the closure, this can be be addressed at Deletion review (where I learned everything I'll ever need to know about deletion arguments which would have served better in the original process). Review is specifically NOT a rehash of the discussion or to evaluate sources; it is instead specifically limited to the merits of the closure. Recreating a previously deleted page gives the re-creator a higher bar to clear. If the new iteration is essentially the same as the deleted version, the page can be speedily deleted as G4. Often a request to the deleting admin will provide access to the previous version, if an attempt is made to recreate the page. Applying with a draft at AfC is usually the best way for a deleted page to be recreated to pagespace. The nominator is expected to begin by making a policy-based assertion the page under discussion should be deleted; reasonable search of existing and readily available online sourcing is due diligence expected of the nominator. !voters are expected to perform their own search prior to asserting, but nothing stops a really dedicated idiot from showing up Yosemite Sam style (as so often happens).
In some circumstances it is wiser to propose an article for deletion, to see if any other editor is willing to defend it. If at least seven days elapse without anyone removing the tag, the prod expires and the page is deleted. BLPPROD is a simple rule for dealing with unsourced articles about living or recently-deceased subjects: No sources, no article. If a BLPPROD is applied, that tag may not be removed unless at least one source meeting IRS is applied to the page. Even after the BLPPROD is properly removed, the page still may face a deletion procedure eventually. Wikipedians have to make it hard for human beings to use the pedia to injure other humans, either by what is said or what is NOT said. Soft delete refers to a normal delete close at AfD where the discussion faced minimal or no interaction from the community AND the closer specifically so specifies. Such deleted articles, like prodded ones, can be restored with a just a simple request to the closing admin or a request for undeletion. There are criterion for rapid deletion with no formal process, so long as the page or file meets general or specifically categorized criteria. Some frequent uses of speedy deletion are duplication, copyright violation, clear vandalism or attack pages. I don't tag as much as I used to but I do have a CSD log so one could see my CSD history. Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)Inside the curation tool, tags for improvement are a codified system, like a demi-checklist one can use with commonly seen issues. I would find it ordinary to apply two or three tags to a less well formed new page. I feel more than that number of tags may have a negative impact on the page creator's willingness. If I didn't think the page had a future I would have draftified or prodded, so if I apply a tag it's because I think this a high priority for page stability and quality. Today I saw a number of what User:JohnPackLambert might reasonably label as substubs (sourced one line articles, today referring to plant species). Adding tags to these articles may actually be disruptive, because these creations were basically attempts to fill out the redlinks on a template and the author has no real intention of further improving them, preferring quantity over quality (a not unreasonable preference at this state of pedia development).
Cats are always going to be changing/improving so we need to start off with sufficient that the page is seen with its fellows. Two or three is enough to start. Finding categories will come easier after I've done several hundred NP reviews, but so long as I'm in the ballpark I feel fine. This is something I need to streamline. I beleive in it but haven't used any helper yet to get me the easy answer.
DiscussionI'm dodging the Youth Olympics thing for a day or two. Humor me. I'm wondering about customization of the curation tool's messaging. It's very stiff and seems to condescend to even slightly experienced users. If there's no such option, I'd be unlikely to utilize the curation tool for giving comments to creators/editors. Am I misreading this? Has there been discussion(s)? (a stupid question, and I rarely use that adjective anymore) BusterD (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
It cracks them up.
No? Well how about a date?
.jpg)
EvaluationOnce I have completed the evaluation and you have passed the course, you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review.
Tips
UserboxThis userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
|
User:3PPYB6
| Passed June 14, 2022
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
Instructions: 3PPYB6, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:
If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page. Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting. Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace. It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Notability (Pt. 1)Notability is not fame, but rather "can you take notes on it?". In other words, is it a noteworthy topic? Notability is required for an article to remain live in the mainspace. An article is assumed to be notable if it meets WP:GNG or WP:SNG for more specific guidelines. The general notability guideline is very vague, rightfully so since it is general. However, it can be summarized by this: Articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, published, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Secondary sources are things like news articles, books, and journals, not primary sources like official websites or tertiary sources like Wikipedia. Don't use unreliable publications like the Daily Mail. Prefer to use recent, but not too recent sources, as theories might have completely changed since then. Independent of the subject? That means that if you or I have an article here (probably not since we are very non-notable), an editor who writes such an article should not use my own books or my own user page as a source. Sources are more reliable if they have less bias. Prefer a source that gives just the facts rather than overly promotional sources like "Jimbo Wales was the pioneer in his subject, an admirable man whom you should follow his path".
Academics: Notability is demonstrated if the subject has made a meaningful impact in their field; this can be demonstrated with awards, promotion to the highest levels in their board, or made a significant contribution in their field. Astronomical objects: Visible to the naked eye, subject of of multiple non-trivial works, discovered before 1850, or is in a highly important historical catalog. Any one of these conditions must be met to assume notability. Books: Subject of multiple published works, won a major award, subject of instruction at several schools, or, its author is so notable that any one of the books are notable. Again, any one of these conditions must be met before notability is established. Events: If they act as a precedent or a catalyst for a more significant event, or they have a noted permanent effect in society. Films: If they are widely distributed, has an award, is preserved in a national archive, is historically notable or is part of a notable program at a notable school. Geographic features: Populated, legally recognized places, named natural features, artificial structures that are significant (like a UNESCO World Heritage Site), and roadways are all generally notable. Music: Subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources (not self-published), single or album on any national music chart, certified gold, notable coverage in a concert tour, two or more albums on a record label, ensemble that contains two+ notable musicians, and vice versa. To add, they can be one of the most prominent representatives of their own style (provided it is notable), has a Grammy/Emmy/Juno/other awards like that, 3rd place or higher in a major music competition, performed for a work of media that is notable, placed in rotation or a featured subject of a national radio/TV network. For composers/lyricists: They must have credit for writing lyrics or music for a notable composition, must have written musical theatre, has had their work used as the basis for another notable composer, has written music that has won in a competition not for newcomers, listed as a major-influence artist, or is covered in multiple secondary reliable sources. Any one of these conditions can be met to assure notability. Numbers: For complex numbers: Must have papers published on them by professionals, has a MathWorld/PlanetMath article, or at least one commonly accepted name (example: Graham's number). For sequences: All of the former criteria plus listed in the OEIS. For individual numbers: Must have 3+ unrelated interesting mathematical properties, has cultural significance, or is listed in a book. For irrationals: Must have a book, listed in OEIS, listed in a book, or has a commonly accepted name (example: π). Lists are typically not notable. People: For anyone: Must have an award, a lasting impact in their field, or in a national biographical dictionary. For criminals: Must be a renowned national/international figure, or the motive is very unusual. For victims: Has a large role within a well-documented historic event. For entertainers: Significant roles in multiple notable films, or has a lasting impact in their field. For politicians/judges: Must hold international, national, or state/province legislative/executive/judicial positions, or has significant press coverage. For sportspeople: Must have won a significant honor and so has significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources. Sports: Basically needs an award/lasting impact in their field. Or is a coach who works with notable athletes. Web: Must be the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources, and should probably have an award which already has a Wikipedia article.
For organizations and companies: Must be subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. Also should have a national/international impact.
As an NPP reviewer, I would take these steps: 1) Check if it meets WP:GNG 1.1) Check for multiple sources 1.2) Check the reliability of the sources 1.3) Check if they are secondary sources 2) Check if it meets any of the applicable WP:SNGs 3) Check if the sources can be verified (WP:V) 4) Check for WP:NPOV 5) Check for copyvios and WP:OR 6) Check quality of the prose—if it has any typos 7) If these are not met, then either tag or nominate for deletion—if it meets WP:CSD or WP:PROD I would obviously do that first, but if not, then go via WP:AfD. If it's not too bad, then just tag (maybe copy-edit, needs more sources, etc.) 8) Mark as reviewed if the top 6 are good 9) Rate the article 10) If it seems good, maybe GA, DYK, or FA
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)Always assume that editors are trying to help the project when they edit, not hurt it, unless there is evidence to the contrary. There's this quote: "Never attribute to malice to that can be attributed to stupidity". So, if someone breaks policy, ignorantia juris interdum excusat. Assume they do not know anything and point them to the right policy. Before the Seigenthaler incident, you could write BLPs however you liked. However, because some IP created a negative page about John Seigenthaler, IPs were blocked from creating any new articles and the BLP policy was created. Right now, all material about people who are living or born on or after 115 years ago (unless they are confirmed dead/alive otherwise), must be written in a neutral, non-partisan tone. All statements—positive and negative—must be cited with a reliable, published source. When in doubt, do not put in the information.
Any external relationship with something or someone can trigger a conflict-of-interest. Say I lived somewhere and was a high-ranking member of a well-known company. Then I edit the Wikipedia article about it. It's really hard for me to keep neutral if I worked for it, right? I probably won't even cite any sources! In addition, they could pay me to edit Wikipedia in this fashion, and I won't disclose it, maybe citing to you its "none of your business". If you are paid, you must, must, must, must, must disclose your payments and your conflicts of interest. Also note that COI editing is strongly discouraged, but not disallowed. Still, though, it is more recommended that you leave an edit request on the talk page for an unrelated editor to edit that same page for you.
Wikipedia and copyright is probably the most serious thing on Wikipedia. We're a "copyleft" sort of a thing, which means you can use our works however you want, just credit us and share alike. You can only copy a small amount of prose, like a single quote, but you have to say the rest in your own words. If you put copyrighted prose on Wikipedia, that means others are like "Oh! I can use this!" and then ruin the copyright holder's opportunity to make money from it. Then, we get sued, and it all goes downhill after that. If we use copyrighted content, we must convince the copyright holder to release it under a CC-BY-SA license or something similar to that. Non-free images are semi-allowed; you have to scale it down really hard and swear up and down and left and right that there are reasons to use that non-free image. Copyright violations should immediately be deleted; if the whole page is a copyvio it could get instantly deleted under CSD G12. If there is non-copyrighted text on the page, though, remove the copyrighted text immediately and request RD1 redaction.
Hoaxes are deliberately false statements on Wikipedia. If a page is a hoax and nothing but a hoax for its entire history, then tag the page under CSD G3. If less blatant, try using PROD or AfD. Hoaxes are difficult to identify, as many of them might be true but obscure statements that are difficult to verify. Hoaxes also differ from articles about hoaxes. A hoax is like "Jimmy Wales did not co-found Wikipedia along with Larry Sanger, Florence Devouard did". An article about a hoax is like "The Devouard-Wales hoax was a hoax that emerged from an anonymous user on the internet over the founder of Wikipedia". The latter is also typically well-sourced. Articles about hoaxes must also be notable to merit their creation.
Attack pages are exactly what they sound like: pages that are meant to do nothing but attack their subject, written in a wholly negative tone. If you see a page that is an attack page and nothing but for the whole of its history, you should courtesy-blank it, tag it under CSD G10, then notify the page's creator. Attack pages with a notable subject should be deleted first, then recreated as a neutral, well-sourced article. If the attack page is turned into a neutral, well-sourced article right after its creation, contact an administrator privately and request RD2 redaction. This can also be done if an article was previously neutral and well-sourced but then made into an attack page.
Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
You must assume good faith and be civil, for starters. Also, do not bite the newcomers. Remember, that on Wikipedia, ignorantia juris interdum excusat. Assume WP:NOCLUE when a newbie violates policy. One of the most disheartening things to an experienced editor is to drive off a contributor who in the future could be just as, maybe even more, productive as them. Point the user to the policy in a polite manner.
Automated notifications sound robotic. Rightfully so. When I saw the first user warnings on Wikipedia as a lurker-researcher before I joined, I thought: "Do human editors really act like robots here?". This is great if you want to do something like just notify someone that they have repeatedly vandalized/added unsourced material, if you want to notify them that they're at ANI, or if you're giving them a talkback message. However, sometimes it's better to prove to the editor that you are human—sometimes you should say it in your own words. For ambiguous cases like subtle vandalism or repeated harassment, use the human touch. When saying something yourself, it's important to wikilink to all the appropriate policies and whatever else. I frequently reply to replies to user warnings, telling users what they should look at. Avoid excessive wiki-jargon. When dealing with a newbie, don't say "WP:BITE", say "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers", for starters. I'll give you another example: "(Your article) has been proposed for deletion because it fails WP:GNG." What? It's much better to just say "(Your article) has been proposed for deletion because it does not meet the general notability guideline. In other words, your article does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable, published sources that are independent of the subject." Show your expertise—don't just say, "Oh, you vandalized". Also, please do not bite, and be civil.
What better than to shower someone with WikiLove? You can thank someone for their edits, or, if they've gone out of their way, use barnstars or kittens or food. Welcome messages are an excellent way to get newbies started. Be positive in your community and use WikiLove every once in a while! If an editor has made a questionable edit, use these. They can be used for multiple purposes, like warning for vandalism, blanking, or adding unsourced material. After four levels, you typically take the editor to WP:AIV, where they get blocked because of incompetence or just vandalism in general. The levels are as follows: Level 1 (Note): Assumes good faith, assumes that it was unintentional. Level 2 (Caution): No faith assumption. Can be used in egregious cases where they clearly and intentionally vandalized. Level 3 (Warning): Assumes bad faith. Can be taken as a "cease-and-desist". Level 4 (Final warning): Last warning. Allows the editor once last chance to walk from the edge before they face the admins. Level 4im (a.k.a. Level 5, Only warning): ONLY warning. Stern in its nature, it gives the user only one chance. This should only be used in gross vandalism/personal attacks. Sometimes, people can be too fast with warnings. Some start off at Level 2 on a regular basis, where others start off with a simple Level 4, then block. There's also WP:DTTR, where you should not template regulars. Maybe throw in some WP:DTA and say it in your own words. Deletion (Pt. 4)The most conventional way of deletion. Users will discuss and decide whether or not to keep or delete or merge or redirect or do whatever to the article in question. After 7 days, an admin will decide to close or resist it. The decision is largely based on consensus, and so is not a majority vote. Quality, not quantity of the arguments, matters. BEFORE nominating, please check if it couldn't be deleted under a CSD or a PROD. Also make sure you don't nominate it if it is an obvious speedy keep. If it mainly is non-notable, check at least Google, Google News, Google Books, Google News Archive, and Google Scholar if appropriate. If you are experienced, try checking out the Wikipedia Library; obscure sources will show up there. Check the history, the talk pages, the last nomination, if it has already been PROD'd or CSD'd, and check for copyvios. Also, don't be too fast. If the article has been created within the last 15 minutes, please don't nominate. You should also apply that to articles under an hour old as well. Bombing an article under A7 a minute after creation is totally nonsense. It frustrates the editor and maybe just drives them off. Proposed deletion is a way of suggesting pages for uncontroversial deletion, yet they do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Typically, you leave a tag with a rationale, and wait for it to be removed within the next seven days. Users should then edit it to address the concerns and remove the tag. If not removed, the page will be soft-deleted, by which editors can eventually request an undeletion if they want it back. BLPPROD is a slightly different story. It applies to BLPs that have no references at all, not even the most fabricated, unreliable ones in spammy external links. To remove the tag, there must be at least one reliable source that asserts a statement. BLPs can still meet PROD if they do not meet BLPPROD. If there is even the most unreasonable removal of a PROD tag (excluding BLPPROD), the whole PROD procedure is killed off. It cannot be re-nominated. Instead, you have to take it to AfD, where editors will voice their opinions on whether or not to delete it. Sometimes an AfD has little or no participation at all. In this case, the article is treated like an expired PROD and soft-deleted—users can still request undeletion at the undeletion venue. I actually nominated an article for AfD once and no-one participated; this procedure was then used.
These are bright-line criteria. If they meet any of these they can be deleted instantly without discussion at all. Each namespace has its own set of criteria; user-pages, articles, files, what have you. There is also just a set of general criteria that applies to every page regardless of namespace. Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)Rather than tag, you should probably be bold and fix it yourself. If you cannot do that, tag it. Some examples are: needs copy-edit, needs more sources, or is a rough translation. There are tools to do this, like Twinkle or the page curation toolbar. However, please only tag the useful ones, as WP:OVERTAGging is quite disruptive.
Categorizing is putting the article into a group in which it shares something in common. It is done by placing links like [[Category:Example]] into the article. This allows the reader to discover similar articles and is also done to organize an article into its relevant place.
NPP ExerciseI will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed. Ok, 3PPYB6, Atsme 💬 📧 21:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
1. Plus (film)
3. Metaliteracy
4. Intro Bonito
Discussion3PPYB6, after you've read my comments above, please respond in this section if you have any questions, or want to comment, etc. My evaluation will follow once this comment section is closed. Atsme 💬 📧 02:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
EvaluationOnce I have completed the evaluation and you have passed the course, you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review. Final evaluationIn light of the challenges and rigorous reviews this trainee has tackled with level-headedness, patience and an obvious willingness to learn, I support advancing him to NPP with a 90 day probationary period to allow him time to gain experience. I don't see even the slightest potential for any major mistakes, or disruption; rather, I see this reviewer as one who will grow and become a proficient NPP reviewer. Atsme 💬 📧 13:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Tips
UserboxThis userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
|
User:Dr vulpes
| Passed June 24, 2022
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
Instructions: Dr vulpes, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:
If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page. Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting. Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace. It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 11:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC) Notability (Pt. 1)Notability is the base standard for information and topics to have inclusion in Wikipedia. It an attribute of the subject in question not of the article that is written about it. This policy is in place to prevent arbitrary addition of topics and articles. Articles in general are believed to pass this standard if they are not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy (Wikipedia is not a lot of things) and can pass one of two tests set forth in either the general notability guidelines (GNG) and subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG). Nothing ensures that a topic will have a dedicated article, editors or the community may merge articles into one larger article. There are a few reasons for this framework to exist. These rules, guidelines and associated policies ensure that articles are not passing along misinformation or host indiscriminate collections of information. We establish the presumption of notability by utilizing using published reliable, and independent sources which have received significant coverage. The most important parts of this section for me was the discussion on the use of secondary sources. I spend a lot of time working with systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses so that part really hit home as a structural part of Wikipedia. The part of this section that I learned the most from was establishing what factors come into play to merit an article. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 02:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC) The General Notability Guidelines establish one of two standards used to test if a topic should be included in Wikipedia. The topic must be supported by sources (preferable secondary), which are reliable and independent. There are a wide array of sources that can be considered including newspapers, academic articles, government reports; there is no hard limit on the number of sources needed but in general there should be at least a few sources from different authors or groups. It is important that these sources be neutral in their point of view. Reliable sources are sources that are verifiable and which notability can be established. Secondary sources such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses are good ways to ensure that a topic is notable, reliable and accurate. Independent sources are an important part of establishing notability because they remove the subject from process. Sources coming from a subjects personal or professional website are not independent but an analysis from an outside party not connected to the subject would be. For example most of the time it would not be appropriate to use a self published source as a way to establish notability. There must have been significant coverage dealing with the topic. If there are some verifiable facts but not enough to satisfy the guidelines, then it might be helpful to take that to another article and see if it would be a good fit. The most important part of this section that I learned was addressing verifiable sources to establish notability. This is where the whole concept of notability really started to click from me. The part of this section that I learned the most from was identifying sources. A lot of my edits have been academic articles, academic databases, and a few newspapers. Going over the sections on self published work and when it is ok was insightful to me. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 02:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Some areas of Wikipedia have created subject specific notability guidelines which are used to guide when an article should be written. These guidelines were created through consensus among editors in that area and can have different uses and applications. For example the SNG guidelines for films gives some rules on inclusion of undistributed films as well as a few resources to consult when looking for sources to establish notability. On the other side of the spectrum you have the SNG guidelines for companies and organizations which give detailed instructions on how to apply the guidelines and example analyses. The collection of SNG guidelines exists to help establish notability in cases when GNG may be too permissive, lack guidance, or be too restrictive. The most important part of this section for me was reviewing the different SNG guidelines, it me took awhile and I feel like it will be something I will have to return to again and again. That is in no way a complaint about them, it's just that some are very different and have different use cases. The part of this section that I learned the most from was the variety of views and processes that go into these guidelines. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Establishing notability for a company or organization goes though a more robust system of checks and guidelines. Just because an organization exists does not mean it is notable, if an organization does not have a secondary independent source referencing it then it is really hard to say it’s notable. For example, at one time I had a small company, even though I could provide a lot of primary sources for its existence it would not meet pass the notability guidelines for inclusion. Even if my company had someone famous or notable associated with it that would still not make the company notable. This rule is in place to prevent the promotion of the organization in questions as well as ensure that wikipedia does not become a place for the the creation of indiscriminate collections of information. One part of this rule that I liked was how it laid out a long list of example of "trivial coverage", I personally find these sort of things very helpful. One area that I can find myself working in is geographic features. I have an interest in the Sierra Nevada backcountry and found these rules for establishing notability to be really well laid out. One thing that I found to be important in these guidelines was that the use of maps or tables can't allow be used to establish notability. This sort of rule makes sense or you would get an article for every single hill and bump on any map. Other factors beyond just the location of places are also taken into account such as being a heritage site. As with the guidelines for notability of organizations, subjects do not just inherit notability which ties well into the rule covering maps and tables. The more important part of this section for me was the organization and companies rules. There are a lot of them and they are very detailed, this is nice as the editors who put this together clearly wanted to make sure there was as little gray area as possible. The part of this section that I liked the most was the notability guidelines for geographic features, it made me excited to name some important areas in the back county as well as pushed me towards a more holistic style of approaching editing. It might sound silly but I grew a little bit as an editor after reviewing the guidelines and the other material linked there. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I would start off by trying to work on articles that had a higher priority such as those which have been waiting the longest for approval. Next, I would make sure the article is written in English. Then before the real work started, I would review the content of the article to make sure that I didn’t have any conflicts of interest either real or possibly perceived. Then I would follow the following flow chart.
Check the sources in line with the subject guidelines If I was unsure about a step I would check the flowchart and review the notability guidelines. Again, at this step if I was confused or unsure and unable to find an answer on my own I would reach out for help. It is better to do a few articles correctly then a lot of articles with some errors. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 07:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey Atsme I've finished this first section. Let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Thanks for your time and for accepting me into the program. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 09:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)It’s important to always assume that editors are trying to improve the project. I can see why this can be hard at times, I just reverted some vandalism to articles, and it can make you feel a bit prickly afterwards. But those are the obvious exception to the rule because malice was easy to prove. By starting with an assumption of good faith it creates an environment that can bring in new editors, ideas, and articles. Examples of this policy can be found in every single one of my own mistakes, editors assumed good faith and nudged me toward to correct behavior or resource. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Articles covering living people (or who were born 115 years ago) are held to a higher standard due to the sensitivity of the material. These articles must be written in a non-partisan tone, be as neutral as possible and depend on sources that are both reliable and verifiable, so much so that sources which are poorly sourced can be removed without discussion. Because we can't have nice things there is a policy for speedy deletion that covers attack pages. These polices exists for to protect the persons privacy, and reduce the potential of doing harm. For example, people who are not public figures and are accused of a crime should not have that included in an article about them. Same for personal information and the names of family members. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Conflict of interest editing can take shape in different ways. First and most importantly it is important that editors disclose that they have a conflict of interest. This doesn't mean that subject matter experts can't write about their fields of expertise but if they are being compensated to edit or could be indirectly compensated they should disclose it. External relationships such as family members, work, and investments can all trigger a conflict of interest. For example, I shouldn't (strongly discouraged) write articles about companies I own stock in because I could benefit from it. Same goes for people I'm related to or am in a relationship with because edits to those articles would have a harder time staying neutral. COI is not the same as bias although in softer cases I can see how an editor might honestly believe they are being neutral. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
All text content on wikipedia is automatically copyrighted but it and the edits to it are licensed under either GFDL or CC BY-SA licenses. Some material that is in the public domain is acceptable to use on Wikipedia same with material that falls under fair use, but this should be avoided as much as possible and material that is compatible with the CC-BY-SA license should be used instead. I have run into this problem while adding photos from iNaturalist to articles about plants here on Wikipedia because the default license for uploaded images is CC BY-SA-NC, these two photos of Lignum-Vitae in Bonaire are lovely but this one uses a CC BY-SA license and the other uses a CC BY-SA-NC license. Any material that is hosted on wikipedia that violated copyright must be taken down. Links to copyrighted work are allowed but not if this source you are linking to is already breaking copyright laws. Works of the federal government are generally in the public domain with some exceptions. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Don't spread misinformation and hoaxes. There is a certain level of public trust and people have made mistakes because they fell for a hoax or misinformation in an article. This is a problem that is made easier by the fact that anyone can edit it and is something I've noticed while reviewing articles. When you come across an article that is an obvious hoax it is a candidate for speedy deletion, if an article is just suspected of being a hoax then the normal proposal for deletion should be used. The part of this section that I enjoyed the most was reading the list of hoaxes. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Even more clear cut than hoaxes and misinformation attack pages are not allowed. This is important as the person being attacked in the article might have their privacy violated and could be put in danger. These articles qualify for speedy deletion. Any content about a living person is still bound by the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policies. It is also important to note that negative content about a public figure does not always mean the content or page is an attack page. Beyond people organizations can also be targeted and care should be taken when reviewing them. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
As mentioned before when working with editors you should always assume good faith as well as show people kindness and civility. By creating a welcoming and warm environment we can enable new editors to become more active in our community. Giving new editors helpful resources like Wikiproject communities can help them find a sense of community and improve their work. If the editor has really improved an article it’s always nice to reach out and let them know their work is appreciated. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
This topic ties into working with new editors as with most of the notifications sent to them may be their first. The first message left on my talk page was an automated message about leaving my sandbox full of content, it was exciting to see someone commented but I felt kind of let down that it was an automated message. The first interaction a new user has should not feel like a trip to the mailbox. Manually notifying someone about an issue can be really helpful in the event you see an editor making good progress but just needs a nudge in the right direction. Other times when an issue is a repeated offense sending a human explanation of why what they are doing is wrong can be much more impactful than a robotic form letter of a violation. Automated notifications are great for pointing out small errors, sending out important notifications, or if you’re trying to gather consensus on an issue within a community. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I’m an educator so I know about the importance of respect of understanding when working with people who have differing levels of knowledge and skills. Making people feel unwelcome or worse stupid can turn them off from participating. Making sure your message is clear, is just as important as kindness. Not everyone here has native level English language skills, also there’s a constant risk of intent and information being lost online. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I liked this part a lot (the kitten template is also very cute), I think it sums up a lot of my previous responses. A lot of the principles outline in the Wikilove article are things that can help bind a community together. Keeping your cool and not getting frustrated is one that I think hits hard when working on internet projects. As well as forgiving and forgetting and the assumption of good faith. Keeping a community positive isn’t always easy but it’s something to strive for. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC) The warning templates are used to notify an editor that they’ve been making edits that are not constructive or are breaking the rules such as links to spam content or personal attacks. These should be taken into account with the experience of the editor in question. Most of the material before now has focused on working with new editors, I found the essay Don't template the regulars to helpful here when dealing with experienced editors, it bought up points that I knew but that I know I would forget about. The levels warning start with a notice about an issues and is generally assumes the error was a mistake as we assume good faith. The next level is a caution, at this level we no longer assume that an issue is a mistake. The third level is a warning, at this level we assume that the issue at hand was made in bad faith. Finally a final warning can be given which is the final chance for an editor to stop their disruptive behavior. There are some cases where instead of escalation or steps of warnings we move right to a final warning. This happens when an editor is doing something so disruptive that their malicious behavior needs to be adjusted urgently. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Hey Atsme I've finished the second and third sections. Let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Deletion (Pt. 4)Articles for deletion is the process where editors come together to decide if an article is should be kept, merged, removed or redirected. The process starts with an article being nominated, then after discussion is started it will be posted for at least 7 days for others to opine on the matter. After consensus is reached an administrator will perform the appropriate action. I've be apart of this process before, once I nominated an article and then withdrew my nomination and another time I wrote an article that did not meet the requirements of notability. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Before you nominate an article for deletion there are a few steps you need to take to be sure your nomination is fair. First check the criteria for speedy deletion and be sure the article doesn’t qualify, also review any concerns that may exist such notability and the verifiability and reliability of the sources used. After these steps you should considered alternative opportunities to salvage the article including merging it with another article, redirecting to another article, tagging the article with areas it needs to improve, and improving the quality of sources cited. One thing I’ve seen on other talk pages that I have found helpful is when someone isn’t an expert or has a concern about an article, they reach out to other talk pages or the attached Wikiproject for guidance. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 21:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Proposed deletion is a quick way to remove an article from Wikipedia that does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion and is faster than the Article for Deletion process. First the article is nominated including the editors reasoning and concerns. After the Proposed Deletion tag is added to the article it will be deleted by an administrator after at least seven days. If you are an editor and agree with this decision, then you may second the deletion by adding a tag seconding the removal. If you see the proposed deletion tag and disagree you just have to delete the tag to stop the process, you should also explain why you did so and notify the editor who placed the tag that you did so. During the seven-day window if anyone objects to the deletion the entire process stops and the article must use the Article for Deletion process instead. This system is in place to remove articles that are non-controversial. Biographies of living people that are unsourced may be tagged for removal if sources are not supplied within seven days. It is important to note that the article can still be tagged with a normal proposed deletion tag and that this process exists to removed unsourced articles only. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 22:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC) If a deletion discussion has low participation it may be soft deleted. This means that the article can be restored by making a request for undeletion. Instead of a deletion article can become redirections instead. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 22:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Speedy deletion has strict sets of rules that must be met in order to bypass the articles for deletion discussions and process. As with other deletion processes anyone can request a speedy deletion but only administrators will delete the article. In most cases the creator of the article is not allowed to remove this tag unless they request the deletion, articles were created in the wrong place, or the created article is dependent on another now nonexistent article. If there is a reason to be concerned about someone’s privacy the speedy deletion process is not the process that should be used, these issues need to be resolved by the oversight team which can be reached using the form on their page or email. If there is a concern about a person’s physical safety use the emergency contact email or page form. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 22:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)There are a lot of tags that can be used on Wikipedia. Most of the tags are used to highlight articles that have problems and need some help. Tags help editors understand mistakes and improve their work, it’s always important to assume good faith when tagging articles. Some users might not have the skills or experience to fix issues on an article. Being able to point editors towards the proper resources can help make articles better and make editors not feel stupid or attacked. Most articles that use tags are start and stub articles, longer articles in general do not need a tag for the entire article. These issues can be resolved by fixing the issues yourself if you’re able or leaving a message in the talk page highlighting the problem and ways to fix it. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Categories enable users to find similarly grouped articles. It is important that these categories are easy to find, in general this means that categories shouldn’t contain unneeded abbreviations or jargon e.g. Category:EC 1.16.1, Category:JBIG, & Category:JCT FC). All articles should have at least one category and it should be as specific as possible for example an article on Giant Sequoia Trees should be in the category of Category:Endemic flora of California and not Category:Endemic_flora_of_North_America. Adding articles to categories should be done with care and there should be a source that supports adding an article to a category. As with other articles covering living people this standard is higher than with other articles, adding people to categories based on assumptions is unacceptable and can still cause harm[1]. There are also categories which can be used to help editors maintain articles and keep them hidden from most users. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey User:Atsme, I've finished sections four and five. Let me know if there's anything else you need from me. Thanks! Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC) NPP ExerciseBefore you begin, read the Notability in a nutshell banner at the top of this page, study it and think hard about the message it's sending. Read it again. I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. The articles I've chosen are unreviewed, but it is possible they will have been reviewed by the time you get to them, so try not to wait too long after I've added them. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary. 1. Carl-Detlev Freiherr von Hammerstein This article about a living person so going forward we have to be careful with what sources we allow and the content of the article. The article is written in English and is not a candidate for speedy deletion (G1,G2,G3,G10,G11). Although the article is short it is not blank and has not been blanked by the author. The sources cited are in germen but after using google translate I didn’t see any copyright issues. There are at least two sources and they both appear to be verifiable and reliable. One of the sources is a primary source so this article should try and get another source or two. The topic of this article is probably notable although the sources don’t make it easy. There’s a chance that the author of the article has a conflict of interest as he has only published this article and edited for people with the last name Hammerstein. A quick google search shows that the photo is correct for the articles topic. I would tag this article with either a clean up or copy edit flag because the tone of the article sounds like it was taken off a website. Also I would either add an infobox requested tag or just fill it in myself. Since there’s an issue with the sources I would either leave a more references tag or just find some myself, in this case since I can’t read germen I would leave a tag. I would make this as reviewed. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC) 2. Wehem This article is written in English, is not a candidate for speedy deletion (G1,G2,G3,G10,G11), and is not blank or has been blanked by it’s author. There is enough information to identify the subject and the identify was able to be confirmed using the sources. I thought that there might have been a copyright violation but found that the page had just copied this article https://dbpedia.org/page/Hania_(TV_series). Reading thought the sources there’s a lot of information that could be added so I might add a tag for that. I checked the SNG guidelines for films and then realized that I should have been looking at the guidelines for television. The guidelines for television aren’t officially notability guidelines but I’ll use them anyway with this article. The article passes notability checks for both GNG and SNG. The image used for the TV show says it’s licensed under fair use which does not meet the content criteria. I would tag the file as non free. Also they uploaded the image to Wikipedia and not Commons, if the image was using the correct license I would probably export it to Commons or leave a note on the Talk page. Checking the sources shows that they need to be updated with the authors names for the articles. It’s kind of hard to tell if these websites that are cited are legitimate but that’s a cultural issue for me and not the article. The citation for galaxylollywood.com can be removed as it’s just a brief mention of material that’s already found on the other sources. I would tag the first paragraph with citation needed tag as there are no citations currently. This article is about a TV show that started yesterday, if this was a show that had been running longer, I would include a tag to include information about the shows plot. I would rewrite the reception section as it is claiming praise for a teaser trailer of the show. I know that this is a new show but there should be a review of at least the first episode online by now. I would also get right of the italics used for the names, it’s a small edit I can make. I would make this as reviewed.
3. Choi Jae-seo This article was really hard because there are not a lot of sources in English. Even Google had problems finding anything about this guy. I would have either asked for help from some of the folks at WikiProject Korea. This article is written in English, is not a candidate for speedy deletion (G1,G2,G3,G10,G11), and is not blank or has been blanked by its author. There is enough information to identify the subject in the article but the identify was not able to be confirmed using the sources. I thought that there might have been a copyright violation but found that the page had just copied this article https://wikimili.com/en/Keij%C5%8D_Imperial_University and https://smartfinance.suaramasa.com/host-https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choi_Jae-seo . I would take a look at the infobox and see if he should be changed from writer to academic but I would need to know more about the subject. There’s already a tag covering the style guidelines in the references. I would cross reference the article with the Korean Wikipedia (https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%B5%9C%EC%9E%AC%EC%84%9C) to see if the topic is at least similar and not being used to embarrass the subject of the article. If I can find a tag for checking sources or translating sources, I would use it but I can’t find one, it sounds like something that would exist but I can’t find anything. At this point if I was still invested, I would reach for outside help. I would not mark this as reviewed. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC) 4. Darby Harper Wants You to Know This article is written in English, is not a candidate for speedy deletion (G1,G2,G3,G10,G11), and is not blank or has been blanked by its author. There is enough information to identify the subject and the identify was able to be confirmed using the sources. This almost got nominated for deletion for violation the film SNG of not having articles for movies that have not started shooting yet but I was able to confirm they had started shooting. There is a copyright issue with the synopsis being taken from IMDB https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63580844. I think it can be salvaged so I would remove the text and add a copyright violation revision deletion tag. Although there are 5 sources there are really just two as sources 2-5 are just updates on the film from the same source and same authors. I would tag this article with a more references tag. After the copyright issue is taken care of I would make this article as reviewed. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 01:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC) 5. Jerry Lee Atwood This article is written in English, is not a candidate for speedy deletion (G1,G2,G3,G10,G11), and is not blank or has been blanked by its author. There is enough information to identify the subject and the identify was able to be confirmed using the sources. The article is not blank, and the author has not blanked it in the past. There doesn’t not appear to be a copyright issues with the article. After reviewing the sources and the article I do not believe this article is notable. I would tag it for Proposed deletion because the article could become notable later but as of right now it is not. If someone were to object to that I would then open an AfD request, I would summarize the problems with the article. Most notability that this article reads a lot like an ad and there is no real indication that this person is important other than he was in a magazine once and some famous people liked his jackets. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 01:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey User:Atsme I'm finished with the articles you assigned me. A couple of them were kind of hard and one was a real pain. Let me know if there's anything you need from me or if I made some glaring mistake. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 01:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC) DiscussionEvaluationOnce I have completed the evaluation and you have passed the course, you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review.
Tips
UserboxThis userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
|