User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 3
 | 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 7 |
User:AshleyYourSmile
  Passed Feb 2021 Atsme 💬 📧
|
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
NOTE: I've added this for my record-keeping purposes only. Ashley was an excellent editor, and after passing the course in Feb 2021, she went on to become an administrator. Her training archive was deleted for privacy reasons in light of what happened here. She will be greatly missed. Atsme 💬 📧 14:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
User:Skingo12
| User lacks time to commit Atsme 💬 📧 21:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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.
 On hold until From 2021/03/17 until further notice of Skingo12's availability.
Instructions: Skingo12, now that you have read the NPP Tutorial and have become somewhat familiar with the flowchart and curation tool, it's time for the Q&A session to see what you've learned during that exercise. You will also take part in a few live exercises as part of your training. You are expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines that I have presented in the form of subsections below. You will provide, in your own words, a one or two paragraph summary of what you've learned, one section at a time. After you complete a subsection, wait until I have reviewed your responses and determine if you are ready to move on to the next subsection; there will be a total of 5 subsections. WP has no deadlines, so you may work at your own pace. It may seem like a lot at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. Keep in mind, that your reactions are also part of the exam. NPP is not a cake walk, and has been referred to as a step under becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions if you don't quite understand something - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! ~ Atsme 💬 📧 14:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Notability (Pt. 1)Notability is when the subject has attracted significant attention and coverage by verifiable, reliable, secondary sources. It must also not meet any of the what Wikipedia is not guidelines. The sources must also include more than a mere "passing mention". For example it would not be sufficient for even a reliable secondary source to say "Boris Johnson has been seen shopping in local shops including: Cats R us, Spaghetti Express and Discount Coats" doesn't mean that any of those shops merit their own article. There may also be times where it is more appropriate to merge articles that separately would not meet notability guidelines. Being deemed notable doesn't mean that an article doesn't have to comply with other policies. WP:GNG states that an article must have significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. Independent means to be entirely unrelated to the subject, for example personal blogs or company articles on a employee are not independent. Reliable means to be well established, written from a mostly neutral point of view and ideal to be written from an experts point of view. For example a BBC news biology editor saying "5G technology poses no threat to health" is reliable, while an anonymous Facebook user stating "5G is mind control wake up people!!!" is not reliable and doesn't merit coverage under WP:FRINGE (and probably WP:HOAX as well). Secondary sources are sources that "analyse, evaluate and interpret" primary sources. Significant coverage means to include more then just a passing mention (as explained above).
The Specific Notability Guidelines are designed to give more specific criteria to determine if a subject merits an article. They also give criteria for determining if a source is adequate, and if the mention in the source is adequate enough. SNG's may also have even more guidance for subtopics, for example the music SNG has specific guidance for albums, songs and tours. For a subject to merit an article it must meet the GNG or the SNG, preferably the SNG.
The organisation and company SNG provides specific criteria for organisations to merit an article. For example it requires "significant coverage", then includes examples of what is and is not significant coverage. It also provides specific guidance for the topic, for example COI guidance and advertising/promoting guidance. It also includes specific guidance for types or organisations, for example Not for profit organisations and government organisations. The WP:WEB guidance details what websites are notable and what ware not. Sites must have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. It also explains how notability is not inherent or inherited. For example if a popular shop that has already has an article publishes a website, the website doesn't merit its own standalone article and should instead be merged into the existing shop article.
Notability exercises
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)It is important to assume good faith with all users, unless they have demonstrated that they are obviously not acting in good faith. Most of the time if a user makes a bad edit or mistake it was accidental and not intentional. Rather than telling the user off and telling them to stop editing, you should politely inform them of policy, point out where you think that they made a mistake, advise them on what to do next time and offer to help. Fore example, instead of assuming that a user is disregarding a guideline, assume that they have just not heard of it and point it out to them. One of the common issues I get on RC patrol is new users changing or updating information, removing large bodies of text without an edit summary, while intending to replace them later. These are useful contributions (although a little confusing to other users) and should be welcomed. As BLPs are about living people it is even more important to ensure all regulations are followed even more strictly then usual. All information must be referenced with a reliable independent secondary source. All views must be properly weighted and any un-sourced information must be immediately removed. There are also many arbitration cases and foundation policies that can affect pages of particular people indefinitely or temporarily, for example politicians when there is an election. The guidelines emphasise the need to just stick to the facts. For example it would not be appropriate to say "They enthusiastically supported x policy" as "enthusiastically" is unnecessary and could show bias. There are other strict rules as well, for example what crimes merit mention and when something can be considered necessary of inclusion.
COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia as it undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia and very often involves content being changed to a less then neutral point of view. Undisclosed COI editing is when a editor somehow related to the subject, either personally or commercially, edits the page without declaring it. Very often COI edits are less then neutral, un-sourced or just factually incorrect. COI editing should be declared somewhere visible, for example the users user page so that other editors are aware of any possible areas that the editor with COI should not edit. COI should use the requested edit system instead of making direct edits to the live article. UPE is when an editor is paid to make edits to a particular page without disclosing their employer. Paid editors are required to declare any and all employers and what they are being paid to edit. They must also used the requested edit system. The use of copyrighted media on Wikipedia is strictly forbidden, unless there is a compatible licence, for example CC BY-SA and GFDL. Any copyrighted material should be immediately removed and if necessary, the page deleted. To check for copyright violations earwigs copyvio tool can be used and is usually very effective at finding copyrighted material.
All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. This means that hoaxes and misinformation must be removed as soon as possible to maintain the credibility of the encyclopedia and to protect readers from misinformation. Attack pages are pages that try to threaten or harass the subject or others. Any attack page should be immediately tagged for speedy deletion and blanked as a courtesy to the harassed parties.
Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
When communicating with new creators it is always important to remain polite, friendly and welcoming, especially with new users. It is important to assume good faith and not to bite the new creators. This is because if we did not AGF we would loose many potential editors. In addition to this, instead of “telling users off” we should point them towards the correct policy and answer any questions they have.
Automated notifications are designed to save time for the issuer, and so should be used for routine warnings and notices. However sometimes a automated template can't convey the tone or intention accurately, or may be seen as unnecessary or rude. In this case a manual message should be placed on the appropriate tall page. This is also more likely to start a discussion or receve a response. This is vital for NPP as it allows the reviewer to question the page author on their intentions and to offwe advice or anwer questions.
When discussing possible issues with users, or just disgussing anything, it is important to alway be polite and helpfull. No one benefits from a short "do it yourself" reply. Instead one should always try to simplify the appropriate guidance and help the user understand. Instead of writing a thousand word text wall, it is usually best to be breif but clear when explaining anything. However it is also important to defer to other editors who may be more experinced on the subject and to listen to any advice they may have.
Wikilove, for example barnstars and the "thank" feature, is a way to show appreciation to a editor who has put in the effort to make changes or add new content. It is an important part of the wikipedia community and should be given in its appropriate form whenever it is deserved. It is also a way to encourage new and regular editors alike that their contributions are both noticed and greatly appreciated. From personal experience, there is nothing better then working on something for the good of the wiki (a satisfying task on its own) and then having another user notice and thank you for it. The warning template system is used to save time and notify users of what they did wrong, where they did it and how to avoid it in the future. The warnings range from a level 1 to a level 5, or an instant level 5. There are also single issue notices that should only need to be issued once. After a user breaks policy and a edit is reverted, the appropriate level notice should be issued. The next time the user breaks policy in the same month the next notice should be issued. This process is repeated untill they have been given final (level 5) warning. After this they should be reported to AIV. This system is usefull as it allows patrollers to see what the user has done wrong in the past and how likley their edits are good faith. However the warning system should not be used when a discussion is nessescary.
Deletion (Pt. 4)The AfD process is to be used to delete any article that an editor feels should not be on the wiki. It should be used if the nominator expects the deletion to be controversial or if the page has already been proposed for deletion (and has ben contested or undeleted). After adding the relevant tags and notifiying contributors the deletion will be discussed for seven days, after which a uninvolved admin will determine consensus and either delete the page or remove the tags. If consensus has not been reached the page will not be deleted. Deletion should only be used when normal editing cannot fix whatever problems the page has. Before deleting a number of steps whould be taken: If deleting for vandalism, checking the page history for a stable, unvandalised version; making sure the problems cannot be fixed with normal editing (if it can, fix it or tag it); copyright issues should be reported to the copyright issues notice board; if the deletion meets the CSD, use that instead; if the deletion is uncontroversial and eligible, use PROD instead. Deletion should be approached from a 'reasons to keep' viewpoint, rather then a 'reasons to delete' viewpoint. PROD, or the proposed deletion process, is used for uncontroversial deletions that do not need to be discussed with the AfD process. PROD can only be used if the page has not been PRODed and contested before. To propose a page be deleted, the appropriate templates must be placed and the relevant contributors notified. Anyone, including the page creator, can contest a deletion. If after seven days nobody has contested the deletion, an uninvolved administrator can delete the page (or contest the deletion). Once a page has been PRODed and contested or undeleted, it cannot be PRODed again. BLPPROD is very similar to the PROD process, with a few differences. A BLPPROD can be used on any BLP article with no sources ""at all"" (as long as the page has not been PRODed before). The BLPPROD can only be removed when a ""reliable and acceptable"" source has been added. After 7 days the page can be deleted, similarly to the PROD process. An article can be PRODed even if it has had a failed BLPPROD.
Soft deletion is a failed proposal, whereby instead of 'hard deleting' a page, it is instead moved to a dedicated namespace where it can be improved on by other editors, but is out of public view. This proposal failed, however processes such as draftification and userificarion, where the page is moved to userspace or draftspace, can be used when the page needs extensive work to fix, or a few more sources are needed to demonstrate notability. Speedy deletion is used when a page meets very specific Criteria for Speedy Deletion, for example blatant copyvios, or attack pages (G10). Anyone who js not the page creator can remove the tag, and this indicates that the deletion is controversial and that the AfD process should be used instead. Any uninvolved admin can delete the page if it meets the criteria.
Deletion exercises
Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)Tags can be used to alert the reader and other editors to possible issues, or areas for improvement, for an article. Some tags are automatically logged on other pages (such as the guild of copy editors) and form an important part of Wikipedia. When adding a tag it is important to add a reason parameter, or leave a explanation on the talk page or edit description, as it can sometimes be hard for other editors to determine what the tagger was concerned about. It is also important not to over tag (or “tag bomb”) as this is usually unnecessary as there are both specific and general tags, which can cover several areas. For example it is not usually productive to add a “peacock words” tag and a POV tag. When patrolling the new pages feed, tags can be used to flag articles that need a lot of attention, or an expert, but are still “good” enough to be marked as reviewed. Hi Atsme, I have now completed the first section. Sorry it took so long! Thanks, Skingo12 (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Closing discussion
Tips
|
User:Pink Saffron
| User lacks time to commit Atsme 💬 📧 00:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| 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: Pink Saffron, 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 NPP Tutorial and become familiar with the flowcharts and page 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 one section before proceeding to the next one. Please be mindful of the formatting I've laid out because after you complete each subsection, I will review your responses, and leave my thoughts for discussion, if needed. 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 cake walk, and has been referred to as a step under 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 💬 📧 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Notability (Pt. 1)I have learned that nobility is generally based on how well-covered it is. Per the notability criteria (both GNG and SNG), the sources must be reliable, independent, non-promotional, and un-trivial. To add, the content of the article should not determine the notability, as well as that notability is permanent. if the trend of the topic depletes, that does not mean that the notability is gone.
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)
Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
Deletion (Pt. 4)
Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)
Discussion Moved from User talk:Atsme § NPP request
Pink Saffron - in response to your question on my UTP,Now moved here 15:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC) the deletion process will be discussed in more detail in Part 4, but first things first. Begin with Part 1 with the thought in mind that you will acquire a better understanding of the process overall as we work through all 5 Parts sequentially. NPP training will help you develop patience and a more thorough understanding of WP:PAG, which will help you to avoid conflicts while developing a kinder, more welcoming approach when reviewing new articles that is (1) compatible with Wikipedia:Code of conduct, (2) helping to build the encyclopedia, (3) a more welcoming approach to newbies in compliance with our PAGs, and (4) a means of developing a better understanding of the WP community so that you can grow as a productive editor. Atsme 💬 📧 13:17, 4 June 2021 (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. Tips
UserboxThis userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
|
.svg){kind=spacer}
User:Houseblaster
| Passed Atsme 💬 📧 14:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
| ||
|---|---|---|
| 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: HouseBlaster, 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 NPP Tutorial and become familiar with the flowcharts and page 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 one section before proceeding to the next one. Please be mindful of the formatting I've laid out because after you complete each subsection, I will review your responses, and leave my thoughts for discussion, if needed. 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 cake walk, and has been referred to as a step under 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 💬 📧 20:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Notability (Pt. 1)Notability is a trait of the article's subject, not the article itself. Notability can be boiled down to the following question: "Have third parties (plural) taken an interest in the subject without being paid to do so?" Unpacking this a bit, usually, this is the case when multiple publications with a reputation for accuracy take the time to write in-depth about the subject of the article. Sometimes, in specific cases, there is consensus that an achievement by the subject of the article means that they are presumed to be notable (such as winning an Olympic medal). While a significant part of determining if a subject is worthy of an article, it is not the only one - it must also not be on the list of what Wikipedia is not, meet any other relevant policies or guidelines, and, as this is Wikipedia, everything here is to be treated with a small dose of common sense.
The general notability guideline lists the standard criteria used to determine notability of a subject. To meet the GNG, the subject of the article needs to be discussed in detail in (but not necessarily the main subject of) secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. Passing the GNG does not guarantee that the subject should have an article, but they are certainly more likely to deserve one than a subject which does not meet the GNG. If an article does not meet the GNG, it may pass a relevant SNG and thus be presumed notable, its may be merged into a different article, it may be a good candidate for a redirect, or it may need to be deleted in its entirety.
Each SNG is slightly different, but in general (pardon my pun), the SNGs expand upon the GNG and establish guidelines to be used to determine if a subject is notable. Normally, a topic is presumed notable if it passes either the GNG or an SNG. Some SNGs detail when a subject should not have an article, such as WP:NFILM or WP:NBIO. Others, such as WP:NBOOK expand upon what counts as "significant coverage". Some raise stricter standards than the GNG for notability, such as WP:NORG. Finally, some provide alternative ways in which a subject can be presumed to be notable, such as a place with a legally recognized population (under WP:NGEO) or a professor who receives a prestigious national award (under WP:NACADEMIC).
The first thing I would do is take a brief glance at the article and ensure that it is not an obvious CSD, such as WP:G1 or WP:A3. I would then check for any copyright violations, as it is crucial to delete copyvios as soon as humanly possible. Next, I would turn to notability. I would check the cited sources to see if the topic meets either the GNG or the relevant SNGs. If it does not based on the sources already present in the article, I would do a WP:CONRED search. If sources are not present in the CONRED search, I would take the article to AfD or, if uncontroversial, PROD it. I would be happy to expand this answer if the question is looking for a little more of the process, but I felt this is what would be considered "initial steps". NPP ExerciseHouseBlaster, I will list 3 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with what you looked for first, what issues you found, if any, and what actions you would have taken/did take. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed.
2. Patushay
3. Acorn (book)
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)The title of this guideline is a good TL;DR of the guideline. Even if someone is being harmful to the encyclopedia, one should assume that they are trying to be a positive contributor. If you are given evidence to the contrary (such as replacing the entirety of a page with "Fuck John Doe I hate him he is the worst ever"), then you have fulfilled your obligation to assume good faith: one should not invent good faith where none exists. Constructively criticize the edit, not the editor.
The BLP policy applies to any content about a living person in a Wikipedia article, whether they are the subject of the article or not. Information that might be challenged must be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source. Anything contentious not accompanied by a citation about a BLP should be removed from the article, without delay. For privacy reasons, we also avoid publishing the full name or date (not year) of birth unless the same has been widely reported on by reliable sources; we also do not include contact information for a living person in any Wikipedia article.
A COI is present when an editor has an "external relationship" with a subject. It is strongly discouraged to write about a subject with which you have a COI. Instead, they are encouraged to suggest edits on the article's talk page. An exception to this is the BLP policy: removing uncited contentious information about a BLP is encouraged. When discussing a potential COI, it is important to remember that the policy against WP:OUTING still applies. An editor with a COI should disclose it, either on the article's talk page, in edit summaries, or on their user page. Paid editing is when someone is paid to edit an article. Paid editing must be disclosed. Undisclosed paid editing is not just policy, it is part of the Terms of Use.
Every creative work is "copyrighted" by the creator of said work. While copyright expires (usually, 70 years after the death of the creator), beforehand, the copyright holder has the exclusive rights to copy/distribute the work. In some cases, including here on Wikipedia, we use a free license under which the creator releases some of their rights, allowing for reuse if certain terms are followed. In fact, content contributed to Wikipedia is dual-licensed under two free licenses. Because it is illegal to reuse copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder, anything that is under copyright must be removed from Wikipedia immediately, unless it is licensed under CC BY-SA or the copyright holder has granted permission.
A hoax article is a article detailing something that is completely made up and presented as fact. If an article is a hoax, it should (in order of blatancy) be tagged for speedy deletion, PROD'd, or brought to AfD. Care should be taken as there have been occasions in which multiple editors have thought something was a hoax, but turned out to be a real but obscure topic. This is fundamentally different from articles about the oxymoronic "real hoaxes", which are articles about a hoax made up outside of Wikipedia. Of course, for a hoax to be covered, it must be notable. These article must make it clear that the hoax is in fact a hoax.
An attack page is a page whose content only serves to "disparage or threaten" its target. Assuming that it was always an attack page, the page should be tagged for speedy deletion. In the meantime, the page should be blanked. This applies to pages inside and outside of the mainspace. If the page is an article whose topic is notable, it should be replaced with a neutral stub after deletion. If a section has been spunout from a larger article, there is consensus that it is not an attack page. However, extreme care must be taken that there is a good reason the content was spunout, and that all of the inherently controversial information is cited to a reliable source.
Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
When discussing anything, it is important to stay polite. Frequently, new pages are created by new editors, and it is especially important to ensure that you do not bite the newbies. It is important to assume ignorance of the rules rather than malicious intent. Avoid the use of wiki jargon, and be very careful to talk about edits, not editors. Finally, be transparent with newbies. For example, if you leave a tag on an article, a quick note to explain what it is and when/how it can be removed is be extremely helpful. As a personal anecdote, my first experience being a Wikipedia editor was (incorrectly) removing these maintenance templates having clicked on the "learn how and when to remove this template message" button. Time flies!
Templates are very generic. In general, the only thing that can be changed about them is the article they refer to. Some issues, like lacking inline citations, are fairly run-of-the-mill and thus are an appropriate use of templates. If the issue is more nuanced, then it is definitely more appropriate to take the time to leave a message, in your own words. When leaving a message in your own words, it is important to include wikilinks to the relevant policies and guidelines, and to ensure that the message is polite.
In a phrase, avoid this nonsense. Ensure that you
The best part of the job. The most basic way to spread Wikilove is to click the "thank" button, but if someone takes the time to write a quality article, you can take the time to write them a quality "thank you." Leaving a welcome message is a nice touch, if they are a relatively frequent contributor. If the article is simply amazing, a barnstar might be appropriate. The bottom line is that showing your appreciation for positive contributions to the encyclopedia is just as important as helping newcomers understand the our policies and guidelines.
Warning templates serve two purposes: first, they help the warned editor understand why their edits were reverted/article was CSD'd/etc. They also serve an administrative purpose: in general, you get 4 warnings before you get blocked, either because they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia or because competence is required to edit Wikipedia. The standard warnings are familiar to other editors so that they know what level warning to give, and useful to administrators so they know when a block is warranted. Other warnings are labelled "advisories". They do not come with a level, and are there to notify the editor of a policy or guideline that was not being followed. If sufficient warnings have been given, you should report the user to the appropriate noticeboard (usually either WP:AIV or WP:ANI). Finally, there are times when an issue is best addressed with a personal message. When writing your own message, it is important to clearly explain what the issue is, explain the relevant policies or guidelines, and encourage the editor to ask questions. As you said above, Deletion (Pt. 4)AfD is the "normal" way to delete an article. There is a laundry list of reasons an article can be deleted, but the main reasons for deletion are if the subject is not notable, the page (and all of its revisions) are copyright violations, it violates the BLP policy, is entirely vandalism, or cannot be verified by reliable sources. AfD is used when deletion of the article in question can be expected to be controversial. In this vein, it is the "default" way to delete an article: if one is unsure if PROD or CSD is appropriate, it should be brought to AfD. AfD is not a vote, so there are times where the minority viewpoint prevails. It is also sometimes the case that the discussion finds an alternative to deletion. Besides deletion or the status quo, some of the most common outcomes at AfD include turning the article into a redirect, merging the article into another article, or moving it to the draft space.
A BEFORE search has four parts. The first is simply to ensure that you are correctly recalling the relevant policy guidelines, including the relevant notability guidelines. The next step is to determine that taking the article to AfD is really the way forward. If uncontroversial, it may be PROD'd. If it is a CSD, tag it as such. Check the page history to ensure that the article has always been in such poor shape. Check the talk page to see if someone has already raised the concerns you have, and that they have not been addressed. Also check that the article has not been recently nominated for deletion. You should also see the corresponding page in other languages for an idea of what other sources might exist. Sources do not have to be in English to be reliable. Step three is to ensure that there is no "fixing" the article. If editing the article would fix whatever problems are present, WP:JUSTFIXIT. You can also raise issues with the author, relevant WikiProjects, on the article's talk page, or by using maintenance tags. Finally, if the main concern is notability, you must at least perform
PROD is a way to delete articles for miscellaneous and uncontroversial reasons. Once an article has been proposed for deletion or taken to AfD it is ineligible for PROD. Instead, it must be taken to AfD (or tagged for speedy deletion, if applicable). PROD is only appropriate if no opposition to deletion is expected. Of course, it is important to ensure that the article should actually be deleted before proposing it for deletion. Once an editor proposes an article for deletion by tagging the article in question with
While the BLP policy applies to any information about a living person, BLPPROD applies only to articles about a living person without any references, in any form, narrowly construed (as in, lists of people, associations of people such as companies, etc., are not eligible for BLPPROD; an external link to a website of questionable quality is counted as a reference for the purposes of BLPPROD). An article should only be BLPPROD'd if it is certain that it is eligible for BLPPROD. If any doubt exists, a different deletion process (standard PROD, CSD, or AfD) is preferable to BLPPROD. To use BLPPROD, first one should conduct a WP:BEFORE search, and make sure that BLPPROD is the most appropriate process for deletion. Also check to ensure that the page has not been vandalized/had sources removed previously. To tag an article for BLPPROD, add
When an article is taken to AfD, there are times
There is quite literally a laundry list of reasons an article can be eligible for speedy deletion. If the article and all of its previous revisions are eligible for speedy deletion, tag the article with the corresponding speedy deletion template and notify the creator/significant contributors. The creator of the article may not remove a CSD tag, but may click the "contest this speedy deletion" button and explain on the talk page why the article should not be deleted. Any other editor can remove a CSD tag, which signifies that the deletion is controversial and should be taken to AfD. If accurately placed on a page, an administrator will "speedily" delete the page. Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)Tags are a way of pointing out problems with an article. In many cases, it is better to WP:JUSTFIXIT than to tag the article. However, there are some cases in which it is a better idea to tag the article, leave an explanation, and move on. For example, an article has a list of references at the bottom, but does not have any inline citations. The references are in a language the reviewer does not speak. In this case, tagging the article as {{no footnotes}} is appropriate. Another case is if expert knowledge would be needed to fix the problem, but the reviewer does not have expert knowledge. A tag is also appropriate if the problem is simply something the reviewer does not feel like volunteering to fix. When tagging an article, it is important to choose only a couple of tags, which should identify the most critical issues with the article. For instance, a potential copyvio is more important than the fact that the article is an orphan. It is also important to make sure the tag actually says what you think it says, and is an accurate description of the problem(s) in the article/section. As a final example, a section that has a single citation should not be tagged with {{unreferenced section}} (it should, assuming that more citations are required, be tagged with {{more references needed section}}). If the reason the tag has been added is not obvious, a note explaining the tag should be left on the talk page. This is always the case when tagging with a subjective tag, such as {{POV}}.
Categories identify characteristics of the subject of the article. For instance, a category might show that the subject is a sci-fi musical or tsunami. Categories are arranged like a tree, where all categories except for the "root" are a subcategory of another. For example, Fire Safety Journal is a member of Category:Occupational safety and health journals, which is a member of Category:Occupational safety and health, which is a member of Category:Health, which is a member of Category:Main topic classifications, which is a member of Category:Articles, which is a member of the "root" category, Category:Contents. Articles should be placed into the most specific category possible, for instance, place an article in Category:Jersey screenwriters rather than Category:Writers. When placing an article in a category, it is usually not necessary to place it in said category's parent categories. There is an exception to this guideline: when a category is a non-diffusing subcategory, the article should be placed into the parent category (or a diffusing subcategory, if a more specific category is available) in addition to being placed in the non-diffusing subcategory. As with all things on Wikipedia, categories should be objective and the articles added to a category should verifiably belong in it.
A stub is an article that "lacks the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia". This only applies to articles that could possibly be expanded into an article of suitable length. There is no set length for determining when an article is no longer a stub, rather, it is a question of "does this article have very little information, taking into account how much information exists on the subject?". Stubs do not necessarily have to be articles of poor quality, but they frequently are. Likewise, an article of decent length should not be tagged as a stub because of poor quality. Instead, the problem should be fixed or a maintenance tag should be added to the article. When tagging an article as a stub, you should use the most specific tag available. If you are unsure what tag should be applied, you can tag the article with the generic {{stub}} tag and a stub sorter will sort the stub. You may tag an article with more than one stub type, but you should generally use whichever tag corresponds to what the subject of the article is notable for. There are very few cases where more than three or four stub tags are appropriate. When adding/removing a stub tag, you should adjust the WikiProject article class accordingly. DiscussionEvaluation
Tips
UserboxThis userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
|
User:Zippybonzo
| Passed Atsme 💬 📧 00:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
| ||
|---|---|---|
| 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: Zippybonzo, 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 NPP Tutorial and become familiar with the flowcharts and page 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 one section before proceeding to the next one. Please be mindful of the formatting I've laid out because after you complete each subsection, I will review your responses, and leave my thoughts for discussion, if needed. 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 cake walk, and has been referred to as a step under 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 💬 📧 12:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC) It is my pleasure to welcome back this hard-working applicant back to our NPPSCHOOL. This second go-round involves input relative to what the trainee has learned since completing the 1st go-round of NPP exercises. See the 2nd Go-round of training exercises below. Atsme 💬 📧 15:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Notability (Pt. 1)Notability is whether an topic deserves an article, a topic is assumed to meet notability guidelines and be deserving of an article if it meets either a subject-specific notability guideline or the general notability guideline and doesn't fall under WP:NOT The most important decider of whether a topic has good quality sources that have more than just passing mentions on a topic and so no original research is required to find the content. The sources also need to be reliable, for example, Fandom isn't reliable as it is ran by communities that all have different rules on sourcing. Secondary sourcing is also key, because they are generally a third-person view based off of primary sources. Independent of the subject sourcing is always important as the sources may have a bias towards the subject, for example, a citation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wouldn't be independent in the article for Bill Gates. Lastly, Presumed means that the coverage should only create an assumption that the subject is notable enough for an article as it may fit better merged into another article.
Politicians/Judges Guideline: A subject is considered notable if they have held international/national/state/province positions or have been elected but not assumed office yet, the same applies for members of legislative bodies at the same levels. Major local political figures with significant press coverage also meet the criteria. Sports personalities: A sportsperson would be considered notable if they have a significant honour (e.g olympic medal) and are likely to have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article also needs at least one source providing significant coverage. Entertainers: Actors, voice actors, celebrities etc, meet the notability guidelines if they have made unique or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment or if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films, TV shows , stage productions etc. Crime victims and perpetrators: If a person is only known for a connection to a crime, they generally don't merit an article, for victims/those wrongly accused or convicted for a crime, they need to have a large role within a well-documented even, the significance is indicated by reliable coverage of the event by reliable secondary sources that show significant attention to the victim's role. For perpetrators, if the victim is a renowned figure or the motivation or execution of the crime is rare or noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event, if someone is accused of a crime, until proven by a court of law they are not guilty. Creative professionals: Architects, authors, journalists etc. are considered notable if they are regarded as important or widely cited by successors or peers, or if they are known for creating a significant new theory, technique or concept, if they have created or had a major role in creating a significant or well-known work that is considered notable, or if their works have become a significant monument or a substantial part of a notable exhibition or won significant attention or have been represented within a permanent collection of several notable museums/galleries Academics: Notability is likely if the subject has been influential in the world of ideas. Any bio: If the subject has received a well-known and significant award or has been nominated for such an award several times or made a significant contribution that is part of the historical record in a specific field or has an entry in a country's national biographical dictionary.
A company is likely notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in several reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
@Atsme: Firstly, if you have ghost pings, it is because I messed up a little - So I finished the Pt 1. section, as I was unsure of whether the notability section is where I should stop or a subsection, so I just did the whole notability thing, Kind Regards, Zippybonzo | talk 17:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)Always assume that an editor doesn't mean to disrupt Wikipedia with their edits or comments, if a new page is in violation of some policies and made by a new editor, always assume they just don't know the policies, not that they are deliberately breaking them. All quotations and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged requires an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Material in a BLP that is poorly sourced or unsourced should be removed without waiting for consensus. BLP articles should be written in a non-partisan manner.
COI editing involves writing about yourself, family, employers, clients or other relationships. Paid editors are required to disclose who they are paid by and who they are editing for and are strongly discouraged from editing the affected pages directly, they shouldn't review any affected pages at AfC or NPP or anywhere else.
All creative works are copyrighted by international agreement unless they fall into public domain or the copyright is disclaimed, typically Wikipedia requires permission to use copyrighted content. If you knowingly use copyrighted materials it could create legal liabilities and hurt Wikipedia.
Suspected or proven hoaxes on Wikipedia should always be marked with hoax or image hoax templates and marked for deletion, if the article is found to be a hoax it is appropriate to warn the user. Attack pages (pages intended to threaten or disparage their subject or negative and poorly sourced biographical material) should always be tagged with the db-attack template. @Atsme: All of this is done - with hoaxes and attack pages I mentioned what the method for dealing with them is. Zippybonzo | talk 15:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Communications (Pt. 3)This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
Discussing with the creator of a new page can help them learn about the policies and improve their pages, it can also encourage them to make more pages and help you understand the motive for creating the page which can help with finding if they are a COI or paid editor.
When you report an editor to any of the administrators' noticeboards you must notify them, when you reply in a thread on your talk page, you can ping the editor or leave a talkback message, you can also subscribe to a section and get notifications when someone posts a message.
. Clarity is all about getting the point across. Knowledge of policies in discussions is what makes newer editors learn how to edit. All of these together along with Tone In Comments help form the Civility code.
WikiLove and positive comments are to help encourage editors when they do something that helps the project significantly or over time. WikiLove can come in many forms, Food, Kittens, Goats or Barnstars. Warning templates are for use when an editor has made an unconstructive edit and also helps administrators monitor when a user needs blocking, they have 4 levels, Level 1: AGF, Level 2: Bad Faith, Level 3: Cease and Desist, Level 4: Last warning, Level 4im: Only Warning.
@Atsme: All done, looking forward to the page reviews that you will assign. Zippybonzo | talk 06:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC) NPP Exercise Zippybonzo, I listed 3 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (1) what you looked for first, (2) what issues you found, if any, and (3) what actions you would have taken/did take. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed. Atsme 💬 📧 13:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 1. Pantaloons I first looked for citations of which the page has none which infers little to no notability. The article could also do with an info box and needs a stub tag. Zippybonzo | talk 14:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
2. Ministry of Public Education Copyvio check shows no violation, the logo copyright banner at the top concerns me, so does the fact that Minister is spelt ministr and the lack of citations also worries me, I have tagged it for more citations and cleanup. Zippybonzo | talk 15:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
3. List of Minister-Presidents of Rhineland-Palatinate List of Minister-Presidents of Rhineland-Palatinate has no copyvio but has a no citation tag at the top of the page which once again worries me but other than that the page is fine.Zippybonzo | talk 15:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I would contact the creator and discuss with them the importance of needing citations and draftify it for the time being and also check if it was reviewed at AfC. Zippybonzo | talk 16:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: Finished these reviews - Just out of curiosity, is it a coincidence that all these pages have no sources? Zippybonzo | talk 15:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC) As I mentioned above in Ministry of Public Education, I want to see some improvement in your review exercises. I'm concerned that you're not spending enough time reviewing each article. There's a reason they are in our queue, and it's important to pinpoint the right reason. None of us are perfect – we all make mistakes – the desired outcome is to make fewer mistakes, and not pick-up any bad habits in the process. Atsme 💬 📧 18:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
4. Ingrid Schubert Given the fact that there are only 2 sources I would say that it is borderline meeting BLP and given that it used to be a redirect until the 21st of April and has an AfC invisible comment I would probably say that it was an AfC submission that has been copy-pasted to mainspace, but seen as a reviewer tagged it I would probably say that it could be improved after a while. Zippybonzo | talk 19:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I can’t really find any reliable sources, I doubt it would survive AfD. Zippybonzo | talk 06:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
5. Thomasines Firstly, it used to be a redirect until the morning of the 22nd of April, the highlighting citation thingy says that some of the books may be self-published, there are also a few duplicate sources. Again, it is a page that I would probably consider reverting back to the redirect but would probably leave a note for the person that removed the redirect first. Zippybonzo | talk 19:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
6. Infinite Death Given the fact one of the sources is generally unreliable according to that citation colouring script but the topic is notable and I would say that it is probably a start quality article seen as it mentions some rough info about the topic. Zippybonzo | talk 19:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
7. Area code 975 After running ReFill on it, I wouldn't say that the topic is notable given the sources only show basic info about the topic, there is even a notability banner on it, I would probably go back to that redirect. Zippybonzo | talk 19:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I doubt it would survive AfD given it falls under not. Zippybonzo | talk 06:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC) @Atsme: Hey Atsme, did these four reviews and remembered to check the history this time. Zippybonzo | talk 19:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
8. Talviklassikko There used to be a redirect to Liiga which I think is probably the way to go, otherwise the page could be taken to AfD and I doubt that it would survive AfD. PROD is similar option to AfD that would work as well. Zippybonzo | talk 18:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC) 9. List of Malas According to the history, it was originally part of the Mala (caste) page but separated due to the amount of space it took up within the page. Sources could be taken from the persons page if they do have one, I quickly cleaned it up and it probably still isn't that great quality-wise so it probably should be taken to AfD. Zippybonzo | talk 18:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC) 10. JTBC I don’t really think that this topic is notable as most of the sources are talking about multiple channels and the dubious own work claim on the logo page on commons don’t really make this a good article, I think that it could be taken to AfD or given a PROD tag. Zippybonzo | talk 18:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: Done these 3 final reviews and I am awaiting your evaluation. Zippybonzo | talk 18:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Deletion (Pt. 4)Articles for deletion is a venue for users to propose the deletion of an article and gain consensus for either keep or delete over a 7 day period, experienced users can close discussions or relist them allowing for more discussion, admins often patrol AfD to delete pages that have consensus to delete them. Zippybonzo | talk 18:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Check whether the article doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep, if there are notability/sourcing concerns take steps to find reliable sources, check the history, read the article talk page, check if enough time has passed since the last nomination before renominating, check what links here in the sidebar to see how the page is used within Wikipedia, check for interlanguage links, check if the article can be improved, if the article was recently created leave time for the contributors to better develop the page, if the main concern is notability look for sources using Google, Google Books, Google News, and Google News archive, and (if appropriate) Google Scholar, the Wikipedia Library is also very helpful for this.Zippybonzo | talk 08:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion is a simpler way of deletion and the only notice is a tag, similar to speedy deletion, users can oppose the proposed deletion and an uninvolved administrator will either delete the page or remove the PROD tag. For a page to be eligible for BLPPROD the page has to be a BLP and have no sources in any form. As soon as one source is added to the page, the BLPPROD tag can be removed. Zippybonzo | talk 16:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC) An article is soft deleted if the articles for deletion discussion had little to no participation, the page can be undeleted at requests for undeletion.Zippybonzo | talk 16:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC) The criteria for speedy deletion which a page can be deleted under as long as it meets one or more of the criteria. There are different criteria for different pages, for example, there are user page specific criteria and then general criteria that apply across all pages.Zippybonzo | talk 16:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)Improvement tagging allows users to find pages that need improvements (e.g no sources, NPOV issues) and then fix them, the tags can be applied using the page curation tool, twinkle or by hand, the advantages of using Twinkle or the Page Curation tool is that they are automatically dated by month. Twinkle and the page curation tool give you a list of possible tags and twinkle will provide a box for you to add an edit summary with. You may wish to drop a note on the article talk page if you add tags that could be disputed. It is important not to OVERTAG as this may distract readers from the content. Zippybonzo | talk 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Categorising can be done manually by adding a link to the category at the bottom of the page or by using HotCat or similar tools. Categories allow readers to find articles in certain topics, categories can also be used to generate a list of pages in JWB and AWB. Zippybonzo | talk 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Stub tags are used to alert editors that a page is small (around 1 paragraph or less) and could be expanded, there are also topic specific stub tags, stub tags go at the bottom of the page. Stubs generally need one or two reliable independent sources otherwise the topic might not be seen as notable. Zippybonzo | talk 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC) @Atsme: I have done part 4 and part 5. Zippybonzo | talk 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC) @Atsme: Just in case the ping didn’t work I will send this. Zippybonzo | talk 16:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC) 2nd Go-Round NPP exercises1. Table tennis at the 2021 Southeast Asian Games – Women's team Following the flowchart, the page is written in English, it doesn’t fall under G1, G2, G3, G10 or G11, it isn’ blank or nearly blank, it has sufficient context, no evident copyvio, it doesn’t have 2 or more sources but it doesn’t have a claim of importance and it is of an organised event so it would be a CSD A7. Zippybonzo | talk 18:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Now follow through with whatever action you would take as a reviewer for this article.
The page is written in English, doesn’t fall under G1, G2, G3, G10 or G11 isn’t blank or nearly blank and has sufficient context, no copyvio, it meets GNG but is uncategorised, and the page could be reviewed after the tagging. Zippybonzo | talk 18:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
3. Andrew Murphy (footballer, born 1993) So, it’s in English, doesn’t fall under G1, G2, G3, G10, G11 and isn’t blank, has some context, has no copyvio and meets GNG and might need the birth date removing from the article name but could be reviewed after that. Zippybonzo | talk 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: I have done the reviews and used the NPP flowchart, so hopefully this should be the last test reviews. Zippybonzo | talk 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
4. Gordano Rugby Football Club A COI, no sources, a google search brings up nothing that shows notability, I have tagged with A7. Zippybonzo | talk 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 5. Bryconops giacopinii The page has enough reliable sources to outweigh the less reliable ones, I have tagged with some unreliable sources and I think it can be marked as reviewed. Zippybonzo | talk 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
6. This Hell
7. James Holden (footballer) The fact that a google search returns a BBC report that should be added, the topic is notable enough that the page can be reviewed. Zippybonzo | talk 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
8. Rajkumar (2022 film) I think that this meets GNG and can be reviewed. Zippybonzo | talk 16:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC) @Atsme: I did try to do these reviews based on the previous reviews and have taken action on them. Zippybonzo | talk 16:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Atsme - you do enjoy using the word interspersed, I have responded to all the feedback that I think needs responding to, I am seeing a lot more ticks though, 😊. Zippybonzo | talk 19:32, 19 May 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.
Re-evaluationOk - I'm still happy with the responses in Parts 1–5, all of which passed. The reviews got a little sticky, but I saw a dedicated editor who actually wanted to learn, and by golly, you came back in the 2nd Go-round and kicked butt in 7 of the 8 reviews (discounting #1 which I consider a lesson learned). You put your thinking cap on, slowed down, did proper research, completed the course and PASSED!!! You may now apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review. Happy editing & reviewing! Tips
UserboxThis userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
|
