After yet another WP:NOTFORUM post at the above talk, which I reverted, I reported Fiorgioba to AIV. My report was removed unactioned in this diff. Please block this clown for NOTHERE. His contributions consist completely of him railing on unsourced about the evils of corporal punishment (equating it to sexual assault in one instance), same in my talk, and inserting unsourced content slightly about a recent incident but more about his POV in the associated article. The last removed post was him claiming myself and another editor were covering up the recent non event in the employ of the school. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon: I'm not entirely sure you could get blocked for WP:NOTAFORUM violations in and of itself, since it's something we can all violate quite accidentally, particularly if you're new. Not that it can't ever be seen as an aggravating factor.
There are other noticeboards that might be more appropriate for this sort of situation. WP:AN3 for edit wars and 3RR violations, and WP:RSN and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for opinions on reliable sources and NPOV, respectively. AIV is more for cases of obvious vandalism, not for situations of "This person may or may not be acting in good faith, but is incompetent regardless". I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
great work / agree
Hi, I noticed all of the hard work you put into Jean Elleinstein and I wanted to say well done. I also wanted to say I agree with you 100% that machine translations should NOT be allowed to be posted onto article space. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung. Could you help undo a tangled mess created by Senti keta? They've moved their user page and user talk page into the article space, and replaced the content with copyvio material. My most immediate concern is that their former user talk page and all its history of notices will be lost if it's G12'd. Thanks... --Drm310🍁 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, checking his contribution history, a stern warning or a CIR block would do him and the project some good.It's highly unlikely that he is turning productive anytime soon.~ Winged BladesGodric17:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decided not to reply in the comments in the event it goes overboard. I just want to understand what your point is for pointing out my lack of editing on Wikipedia, even while I haven't touched the Signpost in around a year itself. GamerPro6423:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GamerPro64, like I already took the precaution of saying lest I be misunderstood, it was no reflection on your activity. It was precisely just to highlight one of the possible reasons for the perceived lack of interest in people wanting to be part of the editing team. FWIW, half the editorial team in the table have actually completely retired from Wikipedia within the last 6 - 12n months, and the E-in-C is AWOL and not responding to messages and mail, although this may possibly be a health related issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its possible that's the case. I left the Slack group months ago due to lack of activity. Maybe with new leadership I'd be back. Though maybe not for ArbCom. Arbcom really got dry for the longest time. I understand now. GamerPro6423:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand that, GamerPro64 - we are all volunteers and we all do what we can when we can, but naturally motivation is a prime consideration, unfortunately, lack of it has a knock-on effect. I don't always feel motivated myself when I see some aspect or another of Wikipedia is almost in a state or disrepair. Fortunately I persevered for 6 years for ACTRIAL though - which also required getting a new team together. I doubt whether I would want to be on the new editorial team, but if I can help get the thing back on the road it would be a step in the right direction.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost
Hi Kudpung, not sure if we have interacted before, if not, nice to finally talk with you. I saw your request for discussion about the Signpost on village proposals. I don't think it's feasible to have the same heavy-hitting articles in every issue -- but something I have been thinking about recently is just a small, frequent series of pieces by editors of all descriptions on how they are contributing and in what area.
We have so many different types of editors it would be fascinating and, I think help the community to understand each other a bit more (which we are lacking at the moment) to hear about how how different editors work - from a WikiGnome goes about his time, as to an anti-vandal type user, someone in a topic or thematic area, to a reviewer, etc. etc. Such pieces could be fairly short, and cover things such as what the editors do, how they work WP into their real lives, how they organise their time here, how they have dealt with adversity, how they build a community around them, etc. These could be both written by the editor and submitted, or in an interview format like the old WikiProject reports. I'd be happy to help out or play a role in this, too.
What do you think? In addition, plan to submit an article in a month or two about integration of WikiData in Anatomy articles, although this is not yet up to scratch.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tom (LT), do go ahead and make your submission. There will also be articles in the next Signpost issue that will discuss possible ways of streamlining the periodical. User comments will of course be most welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in awe you would have made a point I would have made. Thank-you for the comment. There is a discussion on SoWhy talk that suggests the log is for RfAs. Not sure how that would help without knowing how many successful CSDs someone had (ie their CSD log). Based only on the one decline log we'd vote DGG down in a RfA. Legacypac (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you process as many CSDs as admins like DGG and I do, an occasional slight mistake in 1,000 is inevitable. SoWhy is a lawyer, and a German lawyer. I lived and studied in Germany for nearly 20 years - they have their own proverb about their rigidity: "German graveyards are full of car drivers who were in the right". He's been the subject of discussion several times about his unbending adhesion to the strict letter of the rules. IAR is a construct he doesn't appear to understand. That said, he's usually a pretty damn good admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perrott Hill School
Hi there
We are trying to create an article for a local Prep School here in the UK. Can you please help us with this? We have added the content we wish to add, but I understand it will need working on to be independent and impartial
Thanks for leaving a small message on my talk page. I have tried to put on some references but unfortunately, I'm rather new to adding reference links and creating new articles, I'm not sure why adding the website links under "references" isn't working (I hope you can help me with this).
I often do this, Serial Number 54129. It's one of my ways of seeing how long it takes for an article to be tagged, and to check on the performance of the reviewers - if they get it wrong, I can jump in with some advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you hesitated on deleting this and prodded first. I only refrained from speedy-tagging it because I saw you already decided for PROD. Later when I checked it back, I saw you reconsidered and speedied it. That article was epitome of sophisticated corporate spam. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kudpung, I stumbled across this article written by Nima Kordzadeh (Idaho State University) and Christopher Kreider (Georgia Institute of Technology) about the factors affecting RfAs: "In this study, we examine the impact of content and social contributions as well as total contributions made by adminship candidates on the community's overall decision as to whether to promote the candidate to administrator. We also assess the influence of clarity of contribution on RfA success." Though you might be interested. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum03:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Iazyges. It doesn't really tell us what we don't already know without the research paper. Which, BTW, seems to be more of a synthesis of their sources than much actual original research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a brief note of thanks for your feedback on my RfA nom. I did spend an hour or so on the Advice article and related others, and against better judgement, forged ahead. You are quite right, that I don’t require admin tools to make my best contribution to our work here. I am proud of that work in the copyright area, and couldn’t resist the barnstar, but admittedly, need to express this in an alternate fashion. Thanks again for your time, Pal. Hoppyh (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, this guy, 110.159.186.144, seems to be continually reverting, to removed a The editor prior to me arriving, was placing a {{plot}} tag when the IP turned up and used up User:Darkknight2149 3RR's. and has now on his way to using up mine. Can you please take a look. scope_creep (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate:@Scope creep: The user's nonsensical film-reference edit summaries have all but confirmed what I already suspected from the geolocation and their random unexplained revert. Their M.O. fits that of the Malaysian sock puppeteer that tends to stalk me with vandalism on articles that I edit. DarkKnight214916:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take it to WP:SPI and get the IP checked. Even if its not, their are likely to get blocked, with 5 pieces of vandalism, which is well past the threshold for disruptive editing. The edit summaries I thought were quite funny. scope_creep (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why you fully protected University of Notre Dame where one editor has been edit warring instead of blocking that editor or letting the Talk page discussion play out since the disruptive behavior seems to have stopped. ElKevbo (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ElKevbo, Because the rampant disruptive editor is using both their IP and named account. The named Account would not be prevented by a semi protection, and there are not sufficient grounds to block the main account - well not this time. The fp is only for 3 days and if it starts again I'll sp for a year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious...how many of the oppose editors participate in NPP and/or AfC? Maybe we should make that a requirement for all who oppose. Atsme📞📧21:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of them do - I think I've given three examples of blatant and obvious speedies, supplying the full text of each (which wasn't much) and asking for assistance. Not a word. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of them, Atsme, especially the WiR crowd many of whom have more or less admitted that they don't actually fully understand what Wikipedia/Wikimedia is all about although they are paid to promote it. There are a couple of votes whose reasoning seems to defy all logic, not to mention one who mainly confines his unorthodox comments to RfA.
Although over 200 people have now commented, some users are conspicuous by their absence. It's interesting to note that the most recent support vote is from RL0919. He closed the original RfC 7 years ago. Although there was a clear majority consensus, reading it all and weighing it up cannot have been an easy task. I guess at least a full day's work. The closing statement is also one of the best I have ever seen on Wikipedia on any RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across the NPP coordinator page and now I'm pretty confused. How did the top candidate manage to get his entire existence wiped from wikipedia? Natureium (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I have not disobeyed any rules here. On the WiR talk page, there was considerable encouragement to have the article recreated by someone with a knowledge of Spanish. Despite a request I made, I was not able to see the text of the article which was deleted but I was informed it was of very poor quality. The text of the deleted Spanish version (or part thereof) was however made available on the WiR talk page. It was on this basis I created the article as I explained in my edit comment. Only now can I see that the article Astrid Medina Pereira (not Astrid Medina, the preferred usage in English reports) was deleted on the grounds that the coffee award was considered inadequate for notability. Given the additional details and sources I have now included in the article, I would venture to suggest that it was in fact sufficient as Medina received wide international press coverage at the time and has remained an exemplary figure in the world of coffee ever since. This is also the first time I have seen that Natureium was behind the deletion. If Natureium now believes that he should have been consulted before the article was recreated, I could request deletion. We could then open a formal discussion on whether there are grounds for recreating the article. Apart from a minor edit by Ritchie333, the only other editor to have participated in the new version of the article seems to be PamD. Please let me know how we should proceed.--Ipigott (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott. Marginal notability. WP:BLP1E (winning a cup). Sources are all niche websites with little more than short mentions and one newspaper, El Tiempo, which has no masthead. A plethora of sources all basically reporting the same thing does not add up to notability. 50/50 chance of surviving another AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want this to be "AfD round two", but Deutsche Welle and Bloomberg are not "niche websites"! Anyway, I think everyone has assumed good faith on everyone else, so I think the best thing to do is just carry on improving the article; the higher quality it is, the less likely it will be that somebody will complain about it. The obvious litmus test for me would be to create a DYK out of it ("... that Astrid Medina brews coffee at 1800m?"), then if it sits on the main page for 24 hours without complaint, there's your answer.
The other advice I would give is; Natureium - if you see an unsourced biography, do a search for copyvio first (I assume this was done here), then do quick search for searches (a Google search for "Astrid Medina coffee" would have done it), and if you've got something, trim it to a stub. If you really don't think anyone can take it any further, PROD or AfD it. Kudpung, when nominating something for AfD, consider notifying all the major contributors (you can get this from "View History" and clicking on "Revision History Statistics"); I didn't know about the AfD until it was too late (and, by extension, neither did Women in Red, who could have clubbed together and fixed the article as they have now done). On a semi-related note, Women in Red has been a very successful project with plenty of carmarderie and mutual respect, and I'd hate for it to get bogged down with the same problems that befell the Gender Gap Task Force, with people setting up entrenched camps either side of a debate. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ritchie333. I do not canvas for participants when I nominate for AfD. I am a signed up member of WP:Women in Red and have created a couple of new bios about women. I am not suggesting it should undergo a further AfD, I'm merely citing my prognosis as a barometer, and in case it crosses anyone's mind to think so, I am not deletionist . Ipigott, I did not see any sources from Deutsche Welle or Bloomberg and unless they offer new information on the subject, strictly speaking it's still BLP1E. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung: I had originally included a source from Bloomberg [2] but as it could not be read by non-subscribers, I substituted this which can be read in full. Ritchie333: In future I will avoid calls for "rescuing" articles which have been deleted. I have always tried to stick to the rules and have now seen that there was a clear case for this article's deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PERM comment
Would you consider refactoring this comment slightly? In particular, the "that you intend to use it" bit is a bit odd given that the NPR right requires no such obligation. Saying "that you might use it" might be ok, but seriously, I just got finished telling the guy that the user right requires 'no obligation' to review at the new pages feed if they don't want to (in bold no less). The NPR standard invite also contains this language, so if you objected to it, perhaps you should have done so back when the discussion about the contents of the invite template was had (that particular template was also sent out to everyone in the newsletter at one point, recommending that other reviewers use it). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)14:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of which obtained a consensus. It was a unilateral initiative on your part. Even everything I do around here gets a consensus first, although you might not realise it. We do not want hundreds of hat collectors or inactive patrollers, these mistakes have been made with other user rights in the past, Pending Changes reviewer was a prime example where someone had the brilliant idea of according the right by a bot. We now have literally thousands (over 6,000) of them among whom about 200 have ever been active. I suggest that if you are going to cause PERM to bombarded with requests requiring admin action on this scale, that you do some preliminary due diligence yourself. You'll know what the work entails then. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you say this was 'unilateral on my part' but there were multiple people that spoke about the template positively, you yourself were free to comment on it at the time and obviously declined, and the newsletter was peer-reviewed by TonyBallioni before he sent it out. What do you want me to do? Start an RfC on whether the template wording is correct? There has been no indication from anyone that the wording "reviewing is optional after being granted NPR" is incorrect, and the NPR criteria page makes no such requirement. Perhaps you should start an RfC and try to get some consensus for revoking the user-right for people that don't use it, as it doesn't appear to be a requirement at present. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)14:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try to be practical minded here. There is no requirement whatsoever that users who request the right have plans to review, only that they meet the requirement. In any case I've had a lot of comments from some of these AfC reviewers that following my invitation they would be keen to help out at at NPR anyway, even though I told them they didn't have to. The real point of this whole initiative has been to get the AfC reviewers the NPR user right, so that we can make the NPR right a requirement for AfC in the future (something you yourself have supported). Given this, AfC reviewing is in and of itself a reason to request the NPR right, which is why I invited these people in the first place. AfC won't accept the NPR right as a requirement unless nearly all the AfC reviewers have the right already, and now you are indicating in your comments that AfC reviewing isn't a reason to request the right? How does that make sense? The situation is circular and you have to start somewhere. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)14:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPP and AfC may merge, but the way to do that is to get consensus for a plan/joint project, not by trying to jam through a lot of people from one group to another. I'm (clearly) happy to review anybody who wants it, but AfC reviewing is in and of itself a reason to request the NPR right isn't right. Good history at AfC may be proof that someone knows what is required, but it's not the same thing: they should want to do NPP work, otherwise it's just a dusty hat. The community specifically chose to restrict the ability to patrol new pages, it should not be given out to further some other means. ~ Amory(u • t • c)14:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think encouraging people at AfC to apply for the NPR permission is fine. I also think that we should make sure that the people who are being asked to consider applying don't already have it and are active. I think it can be discouraging for people to apply and get rejected, but I also don't think we should lower our standards at the PERM page for them. It's a delicate balance. Also going off of what Amory said, while I do support merging the AFCH checklist with the NPR right, it is also important to note that many of the people who are most active in AfC currently do not support that goal, and trying to get everyone to apply for NPR as a way of merging it is likely going to step on toes. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read both as saying they'd like to help out, but weren't able in the past/might not able to be super active; that's different from saying they won't use it. In hindsight, Nizil wasn't a particularly ringing commitment, but Pbsouthwood made an affirmative statement saying they would use it. At any rate, I'm more flexible and willing to go out on a limb for more experienced users (eg, autoreviewed, years editing) as there is a much lower risk of missteps or downsides. ~ Amory(u • t • c)15:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am being practical. I created the NPR right - remember? And I also introdued the semi-official criteria for getting on the AfC reviewer list. And after 7 years of toil and meetings in RL with the people who matter, and with Tony's enormous help and encouragement in the latter stages, I finally got ACTRIAL through. I am most certainly an advocate of raising AfC standards to those of NPP, and have absolutely no intention of backtracking on my challenege to achieve that - I'm not going to risk strewing logs across my own road, but the users need to meet those standards. It's not done by handing out user rights like candy to kids in a schoolyard. I don't disaprove of these good initiatives for a moment - indeed I encourage them, but they need to be more carefully crafted and discussed as a team before they are put into action. I'll be processing any PERM requests I come across on my watch and applying the same criteria I have always used. Not everything needs a full blown RfC, but more aforethought as a group.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entire issue is that you needed to be very much more selective in the criteria you used for your list. xaosflux and I worked together for hours to get the grandfathering list made for NPR and even then in hindsight there were some backfires - not too many though, but the proof is that some of them never used it but got uppity when we realised our errors and took the right away again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The grandfathering list and the invitations are not the same thing. The same thing would be If I were an admin and just gave out the rights to all of them (which wouldn't be appropriate). I invited them to apply. I'm not implying that anyone who does not meet the NPR granting conditions be given the right or that it be "given out like candy" or that it be loosened to the level of the least qualified AfC reviewers, or anything like that. I also know exactly what your track record is with NPP AfC and ACTRIAL is, I have sung your praises many a time, but your crusade against hat collectors at NPR is disruptive. Surely some of the users I invited today will show up to collect a hat, but others will become productive new page patrollers. I'll take a few dusty hats with few productive patrollers any day (and given my previous experience with invitations, it is unavoidable in any case). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)15:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right on one thing: I most definitely do have a crusade against pure hat collectors. PERM is not your bailiwick until you perhaps become an admin yourself, but if you had processed the literally hundreds of requests I have (perhaps over the years even more than any other admin), you would be left in no doubt whatsover why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you are right, and I agree that sometimes you can see it in the request wording that they don't intend to help out, but are only there to collect a hat. It isn't really possible to get any indication of that when you invite people though. I invited hundreds of people from the top 1000 wikipedians by edit count list, and many of them applied, but only a few have become prolific editors (and of those who were granted, more of them reviewed nothing than became prolific reviewers). Is this a failure or a success in your mind? There are a lot of dusty hats in my invitee list, but there are also many thousands of reviewed articles, and by spreading the net wide I also stumbled across amazing volunteers such as Cwmhiraeth, Babymissfortune and Elmidae, who may not have joined the project at all had they not been invited. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely not suggesting it is a failure, but a bit more due dilligence in creating the list would relieve the admins of even more work. Which would ultimately result in fewer applications being rejected - which is not nice for anyone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the NPR flag as a requirement for AfC work. If someone does not qualify for NPR they have no business sending pages to mainspace with the AfC endorsement. None of the AfC invitees are hat collectors because if they were worried about the hat they would have applied for it already. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But they are doing AfCs - so when we have nearly all AfC people with the flag and we change the AfC requirement to include NPR flag we cut out the least qualified AfC reviewers. Also raising the AfC standard to include a PERM may help blunt the criticisms that a single AfC reviewer is a barrier to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep up the good work, both of you, but don't be in too much of a rush. I know it only took one bloke 6 days to create heaven and earth, but it took us 6 years to get ACTRIAL... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but Crémant de Die is my preferece, but probably only because its only about 100km from my house in France. I've got a bottle of Châteauneuf waiting for the RfC to end. Wine is a very rare and expensive commodity here in Thailand. Even Château Tetrapac costs about $20. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a general thought, but as far as activity level goes, we don't necessarily want brand new NPP reviewers to jump in both feet forward and knock out 50 CSD noms in a day. I've had at least one new reviewer who I interact with regularly on IRC review about ten pages, and then we sat down together in a private chat and went through every single one, where they missed an orphan tag, where they missed the proper stub cat, etc, and then they reviewed about ten more and we did it again. To my mind, that is exactly the kind of cautious approach that is appropriate, and helps us to grow new reviewers into seasoned and accurate ones, even if it isn't the most effective at clearing the backlog in the short term. Also, NPP can be draining. I did it non stop for about three weeks after ACTRIAL and a few days ago I just stopped almost entirely because I needed something more fulfilling to do to refresh myself for a little while. AfC can be the same way. I think that's totally appropriate, and important for avoiding burnout. Just rambling mostly, but I think it's important to keep in mind. GMGtalk16:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you, Kudpung, for the assistance on my talk page--could've lived with it but happy not to have to. Thank you, I appreciate your looking out. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was following the
discussion over Meta and was surprised to hear your comment that:--The very reason we did not avail of that wishlist in 2017 was that at one stage you clearly told us that what we require is not within the remit of your department!.That seems to be seriously callous on Danny's part, given that every-time of late, any of our volunteers has raised any query as to the development of the NPP-suite, he has been steadily pointing to the next XMas Wishlist.(See the last thread at Danny's t/p for an example!)
At any case, I trawled the intersections of you and Danny but failed to dig the diff out. I would be genuinely interested to read the accompanying conversation and the context of the comment:)
It may have been something he said to me during a video conference. Anyway, I don't make these things up. What Horn totally fails (or refuses) to grasp is that Page Curation is big stuff - far more important than any long-term pie-in-the-sky goals for getting AI do do everything. It's a much higher priority than any of the wishlist reguests that have been made since they began he scheme. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A direct ping
I thought about pinging you, for your thoughts. Instead, I will directly ask you to share some insight regarding my last edit. Here or there makes little difference to me, but knowing if you think I'm spot on or a mile off does. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. Spot on. I will never understand why people lauch major RfCs on the VP. It's frankly ridiculous. Not to mention trying to edit among all the other threads on the same page. It should obviously have been created at WT:Portal and notified on the VP and CENT. Probably too late to move it now though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. To follow, while it's not our current practice, would you think it problematic, or wrong if an RfC was published as a stand alone project page, similar to this model, and subsequently transcluded at multiple locations where relevant? That is to ask, why place the page at one location (Eeny, meeny, miny, moe) and advertise it at others when the full content can render at multiple locations in real time (edit links and all)?
Hi Kudpung, wanted to run something by you. I had a WP:RFPI request (The Swiss Commission for UNESCO) for transwiki of this page to the "right" language (English). Once I got it over, I realized that I really didn't like the looks of this article, but it looks like imported pages are exempt from "new page" processing - and I don't think that is in itself a bad thing; however it meant we now had an article that needed a lot of work. I poured a pile of clean up tags and a prod on it. Outside of just refusing the import (which on reconsideration I think I would have put it in Draftsapce), do you have any other suggestions for what the next best step would be? <humor>Please don't tell me I better get to researching and sourcing it!</humor> Thanks for your time, — xaosfluxTalk01:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't tell you anythig of the kind Xao! I am actually firmly against reviewers either at NPP or AfC being expected to do general clean up. It's up to the community and/or the WMF to provide better instructions to new users before they even start to plant stuff in mainspace. My take on non-English pages is that they should be removed from mainspace immediately, including any machine translations which some users think is a clever solution. The only solution (unless a machine translation demonstrate that the article is a candidate for CSD anyway) is to move them to draft.
One other problem with imports and non-E pages is that even I as a native speaker of German and French find it very difficult to do a clean up of a poor machine translation if I don't have the source text in front of me - in fact I can type translations in real time much faster than trying to decode a rough machine effort. Machine translations can be exasperatingly inaccurate, even implying the oppsite in English - which is typical of the differences in English and German syntax. In some languages, particularly Thai, Google just produces gobbeldygook.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This one is unusual, as far as I can tell it was created original in English, but on dewiki instead of here; the original creation looks to be by a "role account" of the subject too. I'm just going to move it to Draft now, and let the dewiki user know they need to fix it up and then they can move it themselves. Thanks, — xaosfluxTalk02:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually had a little more time, something got cancelled. I think it looks fine overall. I think the only part that is going to be a problem is: As per current practice, if the non-English page is not translated within two weeks, it will be listed for deletion at MfD. Hard time limits are likely to get opposition, and "will be" is very strong. I suggest weakening that part to "not edited within two weeks" as opposed to being complete within 2 weeks, and "may be listed" instead of "will be". — xaosfluxTalk13:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also "ensure that the page is not indexed by Google" - not sure if this protection will survive if the page is also marked patrolled - and pretty sure it won't survive aging out, maybe just say "delay indexing by Google"? — xaosfluxTalk13:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More notes, I know we were talking about the "import" process previously, just wanted to make it clear we don't import pages in non-english to articles at all, if they are not in english we make them make the translation first then we merge the history, or alternatively we import it to a sandbox or draftspace. That last part could hit on any changes made about non-english in draft - if this passes let me know and we can make sure to add any tags etc to non-englih drafts imported to drafts in the future. Thanks! — xaosfluxTalk13:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking it out, Xao. The issues with the time limit and deletion are not new proposals, this is what is done anyway. Perhaps I should cut it out to avoid it being redebated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, came across this article; Financial Training Center Limited, would you say it qualifies for deletion or a stub tag added? Article says it's a training institution but it is using Infobox school for its infobox, not sure if this is the right one to use? Please let me know, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, how about this one, maybe stub? J B Law College - there are a lot of Indian school stubs. Just wanted to ask you something, because you've been editing on Wikipedia longer than me, was there a time when anyone could create an article and it wasn't reviewed? I guess new articles are reviewed before being published right? Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Steven (Editor), same again, and blatantly unsourced. Depending on how old it is, (I haven't checked) move it to draft using the Move to Draft tool (if you're allowed to use it), but if it's older, the creator may no longer be around. Not suggesting you should apply for for the user right right now, but I suggest if you are interested in these things you may wish to have a good read of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers and it's accompanying instructions at WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article and have added PROD to Vimal Singh Mahavidyalay, would you say it qualifies for speedy deletion instead? WP:A1 maybe? The website doesn't work and the one cited reference (not really a reference, some sort of login) also doesn't work and takes you to "We're sorry..." Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is surely an autobiography. This actress is desperately trying to get herself on Wiki. One editor tagged it for CSD but it got declined as there seems to be no CSD criteria for this. There is also Draft:Elnaaz Norouzi which is written by someone else. My judgement says we should keep the draft for AfC and delete this COI article she created herself. What would you suggest in this case? Dial911 (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please highlight what the promotional language I used was so as to improve the quality of my future submissions - thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbc99 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lbc99,The diffs were expressing promotional PoV. I didn't edit them at the at the time because I was busy elsewhere. What you should try to avoid is using qualifying adjectival and adverbial phrases such as 'a national reputation', 'one of the dominant forces', 'an excellent reputation', 'considerable success', and verbs like 'triumphing'. Remember, this is an encyclopedia where a degree of neutrality and formality are required rather than newspaper-style journalism journalese. I've now edited your contribs, anbd copy edited the entire sport section - compare the versions side by side here. I could have cut out a lot more because the sport section is now looking like a repeat of the school's website or newspaper. We don't need this much detail and every mention of success at sport is always promotional. I realise people are proud of their schools, and I am too, but take a look at HCGS and Malvern College to compare. The articles are Good Articles. I hope this all helps. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Skylightgirl/sandbox
Hey Kudpung, I noticed that you blanked User:Skylightgirl/sandbox, as the result of an MfD I started. Although I could have just nominated as G1 and been done with it, I don't know why you blanked it, as we've established that the author is a vandal. Why not just delete it? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People are allowed to put almost anything in their sandbox (other than attack pages and copyvio and not a webhost stuff). U5 might be an applicable delete reason, I've not looked. Legacypac (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it was a page with an AFC header and "lkshdgilhdg" or something on it. If the user wasn't a blocked vandal, I would have ignored it. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Marchjuly, User:SmokeyJoe - I am confused What is the issue? It appears that the draft, which I had tagged for MFD, has been changed to a redirect to the overall article about the election. That is fine. I see that there apparently is sockpuppetry. That is not fine, but that can be dealt with by SPI. I see at least one BLP of Bill Cobbs in a sandbox, but the sandboxes don't appear to have been submitted. Unless I have missed something, we should allow any SPI to continue (or start one if not started yet), and wait and see whether the sandbox draft is moved into article space, in which case it should be tagged for AFD. I don't see an urgent problem at the time, only a likely problem. Can someone explain something? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. I see that one of the two accounts re-created the article on the candidate, and then another editor reverted it. Is there anything else that I need to know? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Legacypac - An SPI is hardly needed to figure out that they are the same, but an SPI is the mechanism for dealing with username misconduct. I have filed the SPI. Perhaps you mean that CheckUser is not needed, in which trusted functionaries compare the IP addresses. If so, I agree. But an SPI is needed when there is sockpuppetry, because that is the way we deal with sockpuppetry, and it usually results in either one or both of the accounts being blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Master blocked a week, sock blocked indef. Agree CU isn't necessary in this case, it's blindingly obvious. SPI is useful paperwork in case a pattern develops. I will protect the redirects (at least temporarily) to prevent recreation. Sorry for hijacking your talk page Kudpung. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks to everyone for checking on this. I was the one who redirected Bill C. Cobbs. I wasn't sure whether that in and of itself would be all that needed to be dpne, so that is why I posted here and informed everyone involved in that MfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will comment that it apparently is necessary to remind editors that they should file a sockpuppet investigation even if the sockpuppetry is obvious. They can choose whether to request CheckUser. However, we don't have bots that go searching for obvious sockpuppetry, and we don't have an admin function to read the minds of editors who suspect sockpuppetry. So just go ahead and report it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed for title or blurb: "New major editing policy starting immediately: creation of articles in mainspace is to be limited to users with confirmed accounts". Punchier, and actually says something about the policy change. Do you think it's helpful, especially for those who may not know the acronym ACTRIAL? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leg, this is special report stuff - nothing to worry about; there's a lot going on at the moment. I predicted a while back that 2018 was going to be a big year for new policies/guidelines and events, especially for user rights and all things broadly related to quality control. Almost Wikipedia's equivalent of the 2nd Vatican Council. These are only the beginnings. Our main concern right now is getting AfC & NPR singing from not only from the same page of the hymn book, but in the same church and with some modernised liturgy. As you know, there are more RfCs lined up but we need to go gently with it all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely worded game plan :) I was just asking about the ACREQ switch flip. Just curious as it will mean an increase at AfC again. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what's going to happen if Anton Klapper is determined to unilaterally stall things. Who do these WMF people think they are? Our work pays their salaries. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking, this might be our chance to test the publication tools on a compact mini-issue of the Signpost. Maybe your update on ACTRIAL and my update on The Signpost? They are both ready to go. Or some other combination of ready content. You tell me. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had been thinking of something on the lines of this but I coudn't make my mind up. Anything shorter would simply look like a prohject newsletter. The danger is that the reaction from the readers may be 'Bof! Is that all Signpost's got to offer these day?' I would wait and see if the regular contributions arrive in the next couple of days such as Featured Articles, Arbcom Report, etc. Otherwise if Barbara is ready we should have enough. Do you have any thoughts on coffman? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The potential Signpost article was mentioned in the Arbcom case but I don't think that should stop us from publishing it. Especially given that it's already been published by The Bugle not that that qualifies it per se, but there's really little to a case that re-publishing will do damage to the encyclopedia somehow.
As for when to publish and with what, I'm OK either way. The automated publishing script does frighten me a little bit but I'll deal with it. We need somebody to test-run sooner or later, so we know it is a repeatable process. Partly why I'm being kind of persnickety about staying out of the editorial loop this time, and creating the TOC etc. -- a process anyone else can follow is important. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should aim for publication in 8 - 10 days as intended. That should give the regular contributors time to get their act together (if someone could give them a nudge). OK with the arbcom issue - I rather like the article anyway). I've nearly finished a News in Brief - where's the template for it? Or if I park it in my user sub page can you transclude it again? We're still without an E-in-C so we'll just have to go by a mini consensus among ourselves as to what gets published and hope that everything is well enough copyedited. It's been suggested that I should put my name in the slot but I don't want the responsibility, am too well known around the Wiki already, and got enough on my plate with driving my pet projects forward - besides which I may have to take a Wikibreak any time soon to get my eyes fixed. If there were 2 sharing the responsibility I would consider being the deputy E-in-C. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The incamtation to begin a new article is this: {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}} Save it in a blank page and the outline will be created for you. Start editing at "full-width content".
Your ideas for issue 5 timeline sound completely reasonable. The only other thing we should add right now is a short note at the top of Coffman's piece acknowledging it is the topic of an Arbcom matter. And Eddie started Featured content, so it should be added to the table of contents or it won't get published. So two things. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ready when you are
Just four days later and we seem to have a really complete issue ready for the presses to roll! I'm standing by for your word to push the start button. If you want to do it today, it should be in the next three hours to give me time for fallback to manual. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bri, I'm really proud of what we and the other contributors have achieved with this issue, and getting the newspaper press rolling again. If all the fully completed and checked drafts are in the ToC, Go For It. (maybe some 'blurbs' are still missing?). I believe the script has a kind of 'preview' feature - if you can use it before you publish, let me know if there's anything you want a final approval on, otherwise, as I said 'Go'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bri, No. I 've just had a quick look at them. Keep them for the next issue - they won't have gone stale by then, and we'll be needing some content for it. I'll do a write up on the German thing for next time, and I've already got a couple of articles lined up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The dry run was error-free. I'll upload images in a moment. One final, final question: do you want to include a brief "From the editors"? It is an option during publication. I've created a box for you here if you want to do it. Either way is fine by me. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a hiccup: one reader posted a note on my talkpage that the "From the editors" has appeared for them. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's appearing now. Maybe something with server latency. There's a problem with a lot of the article titles not appearing correctly, it looks like this:
width=50% | Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation | width=50% | Featured content selected by the community | width=50% | A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints
Bri, well, we've done our best. I think it was rather amiss of Evad even if he had been away on sick leave, to come back and not report in. He's actually quite a good programmer - I've seen his other work - perhaps he believes it's just as easy for anyne else. I have new articles lined up for the next issue, but I don't know how long I'll be able to keep up with the work of acting E-in-C, I have to hold down a full-time job. However, I've learned lot working with you on this and we'll get it perfect next time - thank you so much for all your support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure working with you as well. I should 'fess up, the first section went out with my name on it somehow, just changed it back to you. It was an inexplicable oddity during publishing that it rolled back exactly one revision. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got something wrong in my ACTRIAL report. I misattributed a quote to someone. I'll put a correction note in the next issue. Oh well, errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
attributing translations
@Kudpung: I noticed from your userpage that you occasionally translate wikipedia pages. The article in the english wikipedia Uvariopsis korupensis is essentially a translation from the french article. In my wanderings in Wikipedia, I once noticed a thing at the top of the page attributing the article as a translation, but was not been able to find it. I was hoping you might be able to tell me what to put. (I envisage that the odd translated article might diverge after its birth as a translation. Is there something appropriate to indicate this??) Cheers MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Margaret. The attribution template {{Translated page}} should be added to the talk page under the project banners. See Talk:Hellmut Hattler for an example. If you like, you can enter the edit mode and copy it, substituting 'fr' for 'de' and entering your own information. If you need more help don't hesitate to ask. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Magic is my brain damaged cat who has adapted - inspirationally - despite being abused as a kitten. Like myself, she screws up often, but always learns. \thank you for your help, and apologies for my over sensitivity. Have a wonderful day sir. Megamediamissus (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)--Megamediamissus (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the extra message: I see you live in Thailand. I am presently here on a medical visa - I came for surgery and all should be well. I had the incredible experience of being there at/post tsunami and doing my best to volunteer...the Thai people will forever hold a place in my heart. Long live the King - he remains a hero and inspiration to me. Enjoy the sunshine and beautiful spirit of the nation.--Megamediamissus (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Megamediamissus, thank you for the kind words. I had a tumour removed here in December. We miss the King very much, especially his stabilising influence on Thai politics. It's generally rumoured that he encouraged the military coup, but there are no refs or sources for it. There has certainly been a huge upswing in the economy under the military regime. We currently have six kittens in the house. Happy editing !Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be patient. As already stated that there might be a delay in adding links and sources.
As already stated that every thing comes with its best with the passage of time.
Even our earth evolved with the passage of time.
Wait for the articles created by me to have links.
Have some patience,
If not no one can help.
Thanks once again for being rude by issuing me warning.
So that some day I stop coming to the website for my Contribution.
Thanks for making me realize that
Good things done for free aren't appreciated.
@Mansukhsurin: (talk page watcher) Hello, if you are referring to an article, then surely you know from where you got the information. Surely you can attribute these sources with template:cite? Good things done for free are appreciated-- we are all working to build the world's largest free content encyclopedia-- for free. Sorry you are having a hard time adjusting to a collaborative environment and find it too onerous to cite your sources. Don't know why you are calling Kudpung rude. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you for your very kind remarks about my article creations at my recent WP:ORFA. It means a lot, and was the nicest thing anyone has ever said about my contributions here. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
ACPERM is a reality! I've chipped in a little extra at NPP since ACTRIAL ended, having gotten the NPP flag during ACTRIAL. The difference was incredible. Thanks for your dilligent efforts. John from Idegon (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A token of appreciation for all the hard work. Depicted here is a traditional bengali lunch for guests
I know I am very late, but nonetheless I would like to congratulate you for your hard work and perseverance in getting WP:ACPERM working. (Despite friction from WMF staff) I see that you have put your weight behind the Signpost. I wish that you may encounter success even in that field. — FR+11:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request For Adminship
Hi Kudpung,
I am Swaraj Sagar Pradhan from Nepal. I would like to request you for nominating me as a wikipedia admin. I want to get nominated and become an admin as I have previously also worked in magazines as an editor, i really think I can help the platform grow. So, please nominate me. Im sure that i wnt make the community unhappy :-)
Hi Kudpung ,
I did get your answer and i'd like to thank you for the time you gave me. But please i would want you to do a favour , Please tell me how many edits do i require to become an admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaraj Sagar Pradhan (talk • contribs) 04:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here we are. Finally. For good. Your efforts are very much appreciated -- it is much more enjoyable spending time thinking about how to find spam and busting spammers than being bogged down deleting it. Time to celebrate around a bonfire of deleted vanity pages and adverts, I guess? MER-C13:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page which I want to create is protected now. What shall I do to re-edit?
Alicia Garcia Herrero is a Spanish Chief Economist in Hong Kong and you can also find her in many wikipedia contents using the name "Alicia García-Herrero","Alicia Garcia-Herrero". Alicia holds a PhD in Economics from George Washington University and has published extensively in refereed journals and books (please check in ResearchGate or Google Scholar). Alicia is also very active in international media (Bloomberg and CNBC among others) as well as social media (Twitter, LinkedIn and Weibo). As a recognition of her leadership thoughts, Alicia has recently been nominated TOP Voices in Economy and Finance by LinkedIn . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbean114 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Magicbean114, nice to know you want to contribute to Wikipedia, but before posting here again, please read the instructions on the top of this page and familiarise yourself with WP:TPG. The original article is protected because it contains information that cannot be used. However, your Wikipedia account is not yet authorised to create articles for immediate publication. Please first read WP:My first article. You can then create your article by starting at WP:Article wizard and following the instructions. When it is ready and correctly sourced and referenced, you will be a able to submit it for review. That said, social media are disallowed in Wikipedia. If you use them as sources, the article will be rejected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
