User:FriyMan/AAU/Pablothepenguin
This is your Adoption page. Here I will be teaching you how Wikipedia works and how to fight vandalism, as requested by you. As well as that, do you happen to know when does the 1RR and your topic ban expire, Pablothepenguin? Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 13:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- They are indefinite. Pablothepenguin (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ok. So tell me what you know about Wikipedia policies, so that I could know what to teach you about. Do you have any questions on policies you would like to ask me? Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 11:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging you, if you did not get it - Pablothepenguin. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 17:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know a few things; for example, I know that you are not supposed to revert more than three times or less depending on sanctions. Also, I know of the five pillars and many other things. Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- So, here is the most important one: WP:IAR. Try to read it and understand it. Tell me how you would apply it in the field. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 07:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC) + ping Pablothepenguin Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 10:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Checked that page out now. It basically means that there are exceptional circumstances in which Wikipedia Rules can be ignored. One of these circumstances is when I need to remove vandalism from a page which I’m topic banned from. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Perfect answer! As well as that, I will try to ask the admins if you can ignore 1RR when reverting obvious vandalism. I will give you an example problem, on using our policies, to check if you are okay with them and we can move on to something more interesting for you - WP:VANDALISM! + Pablothepenguin Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 19:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Checked that page out now. It basically means that there are exceptional circumstances in which Wikipedia Rules can be ignored. One of these circumstances is when I need to remove vandalism from a page which I’m topic banned from. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- So, here is the most important one: WP:IAR. Try to read it and understand it. Tell me how you would apply it in the field. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 07:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC) + ping Pablothepenguin Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 10:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know a few things; for example, I know that you are not supposed to revert more than three times or less depending on sanctions. Also, I know of the five pillars and many other things. Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging you, if you did not get it - Pablothepenguin. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 17:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ok. So tell me what you know about Wikipedia policies, so that I could know what to teach you about. Do you have any questions on policies you would like to ask me? Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 11:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Policies test
[edit]- An editor has edited an article "2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing" putting such things in: "The 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing has been a product of Vladimir Putin's political games and is clearly a tool of propaganda". What basic principle of wikipedia are they violating? - This would be a violation of WP:NPOV, it is obvious that the editor is not considering both sides of the argument. - As well as that, WP:SOAP applies here, by the way this has actually happened.
- Two editors are engaged in an edit war. They are reverting each other's actions and one of them is leaving such edit summaries: "Stop reverting my edits dumbass", "What is your problem, idiot", etc. What basic policies is this editor violating? - This would be a violation of WP:Civ and WP:EW, obviously the editor who is leaving those summaries is quite rude. Also, he is reverting too many times. - Of course, you are right. The edit warring user is clearly not being civil and overall mean. You definitely won't repeat the mistakes you made.
- User 1 inserts a copyrighted image into an article and another editor is removing it. The first user places the image back, saying "The image should stay per WP:IAR." Soon, multiple other editors form consensus for the image to be removed. What should User 1 do? - I think he should either give a very good reason for WP:IAR or remove the offending images - You are correct, the used definitely needs an ability to prove that the picture is fair use. As well as that, you might want to read this great piece of work.
Answers I expect you to give me must be based on the pages I told you to read (WP:IAR, WP:5P, WP:CIV and WP:EW). I welcome you to include any other knowledge of policies you might have.
- I have now answered the questions. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am very satisfied with your results and they do demonstrate your ability to behave politely and fit into the standards of our wonderful community. We can start off on vandalism tomorrow, Pablothepenguin. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 21:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. You have the right to violate 1RR when reverting obvious vandalism! Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 21:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Vandalism
[edit]To begin, please read WP:VANDALISM. What do you understand about vandalism now, Pablothepenguin? Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 09:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry about the delay. I know that Vandalism is when unconstructive edits are made to Wikipedia which hinder its ability to be informative and useful. Lots of measures are taken to deal with and remove vandalism as soon as possible. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay as well, Pablothepenguin. Now can you tell me, is every unconstructive edit considered vandalism? Why or why not? Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 14:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would say that there are certain unconstructive edits which would not be vandalism. These edits would be in Good Faith, which means that the editor had good intentions but maybe wasn’t the best at editing Wikipedia. Maybe he forgot the sources or maybe he added superfluous information not realising that it wasn’t strictly necessary. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- And of course you are correct again. The edits you described are called test edits. They are not considered vandalism, but should still be reverted. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 14:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- To make it easier for you to revert vandalism, there is a tool, named Rollback. I suggest for you to request permissions on using it and play around with it in the sandbox. Try reverting your own edits using this gadget. It can be requested at this page, Pablothepenguin. Do not revert vandalism yet! Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 14:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have made my request now. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- To make it easier for you to revert vandalism, there is a tool, named Rollback. I suggest for you to request permissions on using it and play around with it in the sandbox. Try reverting your own edits using this gadget. It can be requested at this page, Pablothepenguin. Do not revert vandalism yet! Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 14:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- And of course you are correct again. The edits you described are called test edits. They are not considered vandalism, but should still be reverted. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 14:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would say that there are certain unconstructive edits which would not be vandalism. These edits would be in Good Faith, which means that the editor had good intentions but maybe wasn’t the best at editing Wikipedia. Maybe he forgot the sources or maybe he added superfluous information not realising that it wasn’t strictly necessary. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay as well, Pablothepenguin. Now can you tell me, is every unconstructive edit considered vandalism? Why or why not? Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 14:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)