Hi Kudpung, you have tagged my page for deletion because it was copied from another page. The reason I had to copy it to this page was that my other page was not accepted for publication due to it having a wrong name. Please can you keep this one and delete the other one?
I am very new to editing on Wikipedia so I thank you for alerting me about my error. I have attempted to fix that error now and I would enjoy the feedback if I have done so properly.
Hi WikiJuggernaut. You have not made sufficient mainspace edits to qualify (see instructions). You are unable to read instructions. as additionally demonstrated today by not knowing how to use talk pages. Insufficient experience - you have made only 12 mainspace edits in the last 2 years. The fact of reaching 500 mainspace edits (which you have not) is not alone a qualification - much depends on our further evaluation of your participation on Wikipedia. You are welcome to apply to review pages when you can satify these conditions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your clarification. I have re-started editing few days ago and had forgotten the norms that are usually followed. WJ (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re Proposed deletion of TiDB
Dear Kudpung,
Thanks for your message of reminding me my error in creating a wikipedia page. I am very new to wikipedia and your advise is very important to me. Now I have edited the page for more information.
Could you please take another look and let me know if it is okay? Thanks a ton! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiDB
Please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve it.
Queenypingcap, I can't help you with this, I'm afraid. You can't use github as a source and there's nothing else to demonstrate its notability. I will send it to AfD where the community will decide what to do with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks Kudpung! TiDB has been reported online in many Chinese online meida because it's developed by Chinese engineers. Is it okay for me to cite a Chinese website link? Or Can I use the following two links:
Queenypingcap, you can continue to edit the article while the deletion debate is on-going. But I can't offer you any advice on the Chinese sources. You can use Chinese sources but to convince our people that they are reliable and of the kind that confer notability, you may have to provide translations.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to hear from you, thanks for taking your time to look at the page I created for SAADO - Smile Again Africa Development Organization (SAADO). I would like to request a little more time before you delete the page so that I may learn the ropes on this.Please let me know what I should change or add to have the page there. Smile Again Africa Development Organization is an organization that has really impacted the youth, women and vulnerable children of South Sudan and I feel that given a chance here, the organization will be able to reach and assist more people. Any assistance from you will be highly appreciated.
Today Lincoln Russ (talk·contribs) was blocked indef. by you for indulging in intentional mass-vandalism.But an IP user 197.119.228.248 (talk·contribs) indulged in even more levels of vandalism but got away with something that said-blocked temporarily.
Just out of curiosity,do admins go for softer block on IP's or it depends on the perception of the blocking admin?Thanks!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard11:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ARUNEEK, there is a rule that IPs are not to be blocked for too long because nowadays sometimes thousands of people may be using the same IP address (it may be a smartphone using a GSM cell). Generally in a first instance we block for 31 hours which is enough to stop a serial vandal. If it turns out that someone is regularly using a static IP from the same street location in a private house, rather than, say, a public library, a hotel lobby, or a public WiFi hotspot, then of course we'll block for longer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Please can you confirm with urgency why our page has been deleted (International Parity at Work Day) and which parts you believe are copyrighted. We are keen to have this page up and running ASAP so would really appreciate a response this week if possible? Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishreen (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the errors I previously made. I added into quite a lot of factual information of R. C. Lee Hall and hope you can help with the review again.
Rclhsaexco The main problem is that I can't see the article ever reaching notability within our criteria. What is special about this hall of residence that justifies a Wikipedia article? What makes it important or significant? How has it changed the way people think or work? If one is able to answer those questions, the next step is to find several independent mainstream press articles that dedicate in-depth coverage to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I have further cited a few independent mainstream press articles introducing the value of the hall education of R. C. Lee Hall. Being different from other dormitories all over the world, the educational value of hall residence has been introduced in the University of Hong Kong since its establishment. Apart from staying in the dormitories, it has always been an emphasis for students to learn in a residential hall in the University of Hong Kong. The value behind is written clearly in the articles I just cited. It surely inspired a lot of HKU students. And all other halls in HKU also have their pages published, with their vision and their values. I hope this could help answer your concerns listed above. Other halls' page on wikipedia include : St. John's College, University of Hong Kong, Lee Hysan Hall, Starr Hall, Swire Hall
Rclhsaexco , please see the questions in my previous message. Then see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and then WP:ORG. Not even individual universitey departments or faculties qualify for articles. The example you have cited appear to have slipped through the net and I will shortly arrange for their deletion. Also, please declare your connection or employment with this organisation (required by policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 November 2016 I asked Thertho Bose (talk·contribs)(who by the way seems to have an affinity and a long history in adding and altering cast names without any attributable source) to provide sources to support his recent additions so that it may not be removed.Subsequently Tahia Akter Chowdhury (talk·contribs) popped up and went on a strongly similar same editing pattern in almost the same genre/set of articles,further adding unsourced names which were reverted by me in a few articles,re-instated by the editor and again reverted.
I doubt them to be socks and would like to know about future course of action(if any) or if my assumption is wrong.Thanks! Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard09:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ARUNEEK, I don't have time to look int this for the moment. If you think they are socks, then you should start an SPI. If the Thertho Bose account keeps reordering cast, he's been given enough final warnings, so let me know and I'll block him. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hi Kudpung
Thanks for you response and so quickly. plus thanks ahead of time for your time to review my submission and any further followup.
Let me explain first that I'm new to this process. Newbie . and I want to do the right thing. I have no invested interest in Mr Scott Binsack but the fact is he is making and publishing Youtube videos making claims whether they are right or wrong is not really our concern at this point. (in other words I have no reason to promote him or his website.) . After view one of his youtube video I went to Wiki to see if he was listed there. As you know there isn't. My intention is if he intends to produce video his credentials should be brought to light . If you have time to answer and/or explain where my thinking is flawed. is will surly help me to understand this process, again thanks
Randy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basaatw (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basaatw please be sure to read the headers and footers of talk pages before you post anything otherwise you might nor get a reply. The article is unfortunately more than blatantly promotional and I regret to have to inform you that it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
14 year old school kid from Nepal. We have problems with whole bunch of these this year. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Watch his edits and if he makes another edit out of character I'll zap his account. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, I realised by patrol tools does not load to enable me edit on the new pages feed.Kindly help me out.Thank you.
Bayelharriet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayelharriet Dear Applicant,
Thank you for your application for the climate change and cocoa agroforestry in Ghana scholarship. I am sorry to inform you that your application was not successful following a rigorous selection process. The scholarship attracted a large number of applications for a limited number of awards so therefore many strong applications were unsuccessful.
I meant tools that enables editors to patrol articles. It consist of an icons where you can tag articles for deletion and also specify errors on an article based on stucture, bare urls etc.Basically the i can't access the platform that enabled me to edit articles in the New pages feed.
Bayelharriet, you don't have enough experience to patrol pages. Please also learn how to use talk pages, then perhaps try your hand at reverting vandalism. You can apply for the right to patrol and tag pages when you have already got the PC Reviewer right and the Rollbacker right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kudupung for your response. I will do exactly what you asked. However I used to have the patrol tools but for sometime now i don't see it.--Bayelharriet (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to say it, but the FAC comments are pretty much correct as far as the overall sourcing and formatting issues go. I didn't spend a lot of time on the content, so no substantive comments there other than to say that it seems a little disorganized and clearly has suffered from driveby editors. But, the large number of paragraphs and statements hanging out there with no sourcing at all are definitely a problem. My thought would be to maybe go back to what the article looked like when it passed GA and rebuild from there. As for time and effort, I know that most of the time I've ever done a FAC, I either have a team that includes people who are strong on stuff where I am not (like nitpicking citation formatting for consistency) or, yeah, 100 hours... I'd say that sourcing the unsourced -- or chopping the unsourced -- is a starting place -- the article risks a GAR if that is not done. You might have to redo some of the sourcing if you can't access the original works used (which sucks, no other way to put it). I don't see the need to split the article, yet anyway, but some general copyediting and tightening up of prose might alleviate the concerns of the editors who thought things were too wordy. Consistent formatting is huge and running a check on deadlinks is also a big deal. FAC hangs on sourcing; the rest is usually just discussions over copyediting that can often be fixed during the FAC itself. Thinking back on something where I was a minor player, when I helped on the rainbow trout article's FAC, we did a LOT of work on it during its FAC run as well as in the leadup. I've described the process as "daunting" and exhausting. If you want to work on it and need someone to help on the nitpicky stuff, I most certainly know nothing about the topic so have no agenda, but would be willing to do some wikignoming. Montanabw(talk)20:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your comments. When I nominated the article, I naïvely thought the FA process was a bit like GA where the reviewers and a team of other people lend a hand. Obviously I was mistaken as evidenced by most of the comments there and later in other places. They were more or less on the lines of 'do it yourself, or don't bother' leastways that's how I interpreted it. I held off nominating anything for FA for many years until a certain person who has been harassing me for years with unprovoked PA and snide asides more or less finally realised that they are not the apple of the community's eye.
The Malvern article doesn't actually need much doing to it beyond the few objective points that were made on the FA nom - which were mainly things I was already aware of and could have easily addressed. Everything that needs sourcing is sourced and there are no dead links, it's just a question of putting the source tags in the right places and jiggling some paragraphs around. Some bits and pieces of content have since been added by editors with less flair for prose, and I am not in the least worried about cutting some stuff out. The main problem however is the unique referencing system that would be a challenge to anybody; the two people who devised it are no longer around, they are the two former Malvern residents who helped a bit getting he article to GA. I wanted your feedback not only because you are listed as one of those people, but also because I knew that having nothing to do with horses, your comments would be objective, but I could not possibly burden you with actually working on the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be slow responding, been off-wiki a few days (kind of inactive lately, just busy IRL). I would say that I'm not a fan of that referencing system, either; the article is almost at GAR status with all the unsourced stuff that was added too... My suggestion is to go back to the version that passed GA, and then add in only the stuff you think improved the article further and do it your way. I usually would just boldly do this, but I DO sometimes get in trouble for doing such a huge revert, so if there have been a lot of changes and you fret that there could be drama if you take an axe to the current version, then put the GA version in your sandbox and build it there, then do a copypaste move. Montanabw(talk)05:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could move it back as far as Tim riley's in-depth pre FA peer review of 2011 when I originally intended to list it at FAC, that would probably be a safe place. That would however still leave over 1,000 new edits, some of which at a cursory glance appear to be good, to sort through, taking about 40 hours; and the referencing/footnotes system which I am unable to decipher at all for another 100 hours even if I knew how. It also needs cutting down a lot from its current 140Kb, but much of that can probably be done by splitting off the history section leaving a summary, and splitting the people section off leaving a short prose para about the more important ones. Finally, perhaps I should have asked for another formal Peer Review before submitting it to FAC. But at the end of the day, without any collaboration from the other people from my home town who 'helped' on it, I'm of a mind to abandon the article entirely.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a time/energy issue with all projects. One must triage. That said, sometimes "1000 new edits" is, in reality, fewer than one thinks. I'd say it definitely depends on where your focus and energy is and luckily on wiki there is no deadline. Best wishes whichever way you go Montanabw(talk)18:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewer
Hi Kudpung, thanks for the above. I really enjoy reviewing a good article, particularly one that is missing a few vital references, and are extremely difficult to squirrel out like this. I was reading your bio with interest and I noticed your dad worked on Radar during the war. I'm currently writing this:B-Dienst and I'm looking for info on the German side regarding centimetric radar that caused a fierce amount of difficulty and hassle and ultimately defeat for the Germans. scope_creep (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scope creep. Yes, my dad who sadly passed away three weeks ago at nearly 98 started his career at the Worth Matravers Chain Home location, then was moved to Malvern in 1940. Unfortunately, I know absolutely nothing about Radar or any other electronics, but as a 99.99% native German speaker, I'd be more than happy to verify any German language sources for you or do any short translations from German for the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Radar?
Saw the above comment about radar. I created Russell and Sigurd Varian, who invented the klystron, and found the topic fascinating, even though I knew nothing about it before starting on the article. (Yes, there's a horse connection... there's ALWAYS a horse connection... LOL!). That's an article I've thought about taking to GA and would value input, comments, or even collaborators. Montanabw(talk)17:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, that article is clearly GA material, as you of course already know. There are some bits of quirky prose, but that might be AE with which I am (from a linguists's point of view) only 99.9% familiar), and some of he sections are very long and should be split into sub sections. Everything looks to be well sourced and there are no dead links. I would be happy to spend some time on it with you, but any help from me at the moment would probably take me more than the 7 days allowed for GA. Unlike the FA review bosses who have nearly as many gold stars on their user pages as edits in their edit count, I would not expect recognition for any help where you are of course entirely credited with with everything that went into the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did read-through and noticed a lot of awkward stuff I'd like to fix prior to a GA or FA run. Perhaps if you'd like to dive in and work on the organization issues you see and perhaps flag the most awkward phrasing, go for it. I'll figure out the sourcing issues -- if you've got a tool that can flag the deadlinks. I'd like to obtain the Dorothy Varian book if I can, I think that was the one thing I was wanting to do before a run for the bling. Montanabw(talk)18:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
deleted page =(
Hi there, I just noticed that my draft page for Cloud of Goods has been deleted after a short hiatus. Is there ANY WAY for the content to be restored as I spent a couple weeks on that material.
Trysteen, unfortunately the answer is basically 'no'; as an administrator I cannot restore anything so blatantly promotional to any pages within the Wikipedia. The article has been declined three times and there were no attempts to address the issues. Please note also that it is unlikely that such an article will ever be suitable for Wikipedia unless it becomes the subject of multiple, dedicated, significant coverage in your country's national press or a TV documentary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE
I would respectfully counsel you not to threaten me with bans, etc. Without investigating and knowing the FULL CONTEXT of the situation, which you are obviously blatnently unaware of. I simply directed a user to stop making edits to my pages and edits without being able to show support in fine and flawless detail for the edits which they failed or refused to provide to a level that satisfies a reasonable basis for the edits., where apparently the user failed to carefully read the references I gave in the material. This sort of thing is exactly why I refuse to financially support Wikipedia and urge others not to financially support Wikipedia. Thank You. 72.192.72.19 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kudpung - cross-posting from The Teahouse... The main BBC News site is running a piece on tomorrow's edit-a-thon for women, encouraging the public (i.e. BBC readers/viewers) to participate across multiple global events. Is there a need to communicate to New Page Reviewers and other edit watchers to expect more first-time editors and reinforce WP:BITE? I wasn't sure who to notify, or whether this is already widely known. Thanks for your guidance on next steps, if any.‑‑Dstone66 ⑆(talk)⑇(contribs)⑈ 21:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up Dstone66. However, I'm not sure that policy allows us to pre-empt anything like this by sending a mass message. I think we'll have to accept the challenge it will make to the patrollers and reinforce our arguments later once again that that New Page Patrolling and Reviewing are inadequate. What you can do, however, is post a nice, big bold warning of this up coming event at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would a watchlist notice be useful here? A general heads up in advance could at least forewarn some new page reviewers and our general recent change patrollers? -- samtartalk or stalk22:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson, Gestrid, and RexxS:: AfC is a complete shambles. There are some very competent editors there but for the most part it's been a group of far too many, not very active reviewers tripping up over each other wondering what to do. The IEP generated around 1,000 or more articles in mainspace for which I organised a massive clean up from which many volunteers are still smarting years later. I don't know ho is responsible for the organisation of this editathon - on the surface it sees like an excellent initiative and if I were in the UK I would be at Broadcasting house myself. It would have been good if the stakeholders had been given more warning. If things go wrong therefore, and if it creates a monumental workload for reviewers, there will be a kerfuffle for sure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlist notices are pretty useless for urgent communications. If I can get consensus here now to send a mass essage to the 300 New Page Reviewers and alk the AfC reviewers, I'll have it done in 10 - 20 minutes, but I won't take the decision to do it unilaterally. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
I'd say go ahead and send the mass message, Kudpung. It can't do any harm and it has the potential to avoid quite a bit of it. I'll be at BBC Monitoring at Caversham Park working with a group of BBC staff most of the day, so I can keep an eye on my talk page if anybody needs to contact me. I'll ping @Richard Nevell: now as I'm hoping he'll be on hand at the WMUK office tomorrow to do adminy-type stuff if needed. --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks. Sorry for not replying sooner - I was at the BBC event yesterday to train new editors and lend a hand generally. It was a very busy day with lots of people involved. I'll be keeping an eye out for admin-y type issues. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the BBC are doing a Live Reporting page on this, so it will get a lot of attention. See here. I struggled to find a centralised discussion venue on en-Wikipedia about this. Is this discussion the only one (I am aware of the WMUK page and the meetup page). Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great Thanks!
Hello, Kudpung,
Great thanks for the excellent completion of the discussion on the Mineralogy Barnstar.
You are right - shelves filled with massive volumes of instructions can cause even more frustration, than their complete absence.
But, probably, in the area of the creation of Barnstars it will be nice to have just several hints, to help the debuting authors navigate the new situation.
Personally, trying to manage this process, I felt myself blindfolded and completely disorientated (for example, my invitation to discuss a new Barnstar on Teahouse), until Editor Gestrid kindly explained to me a situation and pointed out the error; and I thought, that something was wrong with the arrangement of the discussion procedure, until you suddenly and remarkably have completed it.
Now, in contrast to the start, I feel confident in the Barnstars’ space.
Thank you very much again.
(1) I'm not fond of using scripts, and (2) I haven't visited WP:PERM in months. I encountered WP:HD#review and knew that APK would qualify, so I just assigned the right without knowing that any formal request had been made. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend:. That's fine - I often accord rights direct from the rights management page myself. However, New Page reviewer is a little bit different from the others and there are a few steps that are done automatically when according a right. If not using the script, At a bare minimum, please consider pasting
MordeKyle, How were you patrolling new pages before the new user group was created? How do you believe ths user right would assist you in your editing? If you have read WP:NPP, why did you provide the wrong answer to my question about schools? Why are you so insistent about obtaining this right which only adds to patrollers the ability to allow Google to index new articles? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before the new user group was created, after addressing all issues, if any, I would mark them as patrolled when I felt comfortable that it was safe to do so. I never marked pages as patrolled that I was unsure about. This user right will not assist my editing, it will only allow me to assist Wikipedia. I still don't believe I answered incorrectly the question you asked. You asked me an very vague question. To me, the obvious answer was confirm to you that I was aware of educational institutions being exempt from A7 CSD tags. I even asked you a question in my answer, to which you did not expand upon. I am not insistent on this right, I am just perplexed by why you would keep me from doing this. Regardless of this user right, I can still add maintenance tags, CSD tags, xfd, prod, stub, etc. I spend a lot of time looking at new articles and recent changes trying to learn as much as I can. I see new articles remain unpatrolled for a long time after they have been properly tagged, speedier, redirected, moved, stubbed, etc. Then, when I answer your question, you give me an impossible task, that's why I grow frustrated with this. I am trying to be a productive member of Wikipedia. Am I a perfect editor? No. No one is. I try to learn as much as I can with each mistake I make, and that's the best I can do. {MordeKyle} ☢04:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hi, Kudpung - I got your notice that you "unreviewed" Saskia Lettmaier so I need a bit more info. I reviewed the article, and considering the BLP served as a judge on the highest court for civil and criminal matters in Schleswig-Holstein and is also a law professor at the University of Kiel, Germany, I thought she passed per WP:PROF. Do the issues arise because of the COI? Even so, the article has been tagged, so why would that cause the article to go back for review? Are you looking for another reviewer to request deletion, or have I missed something or failed to do something I'm supposed to do? Atsme📞📧16:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HI Atsme. You didn't do anything wrong - the tag is not a reflection on your work, but as it's a BLP with that number of issues, I thought as a cautionary measure it could do with more eyes before being for indexed; already one editor has suggested it might not pass AfD. There are no other Ghits for her and Lettmayer is not a particularly common Germnan name. As a BLP it's only source is a 2-line faculty entry, it's basically a CV hat doesn't make any clear claims to notability, she's rather young to have any special distinctions - although that in itself is not an issue, and it's a COI (possibly a sister - they both study or studied law at Harvard, or even the same person). It's a direct translation, without attribution, of the earlier German Wikipedia article by IP 2a02:8108:1bf:e9fc:fdb1:b11a:d4bd:ae6]]. . The English version was probably an article created under the BBC100W hackethon. These are all indications that are revealed by a full New Page Patrol. I have never fully understood the complex notability rating system for WP:PROF so I've asked DGG to take a look at it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kudpung. Being an energetic new recruit to yet another facet of WP, I took a little time to research her notability (academic). If it helps save DGG some time, I was able to verify that she is a tenured professor and a director of the Kiel University's Hermann Kantorowicz Institute. She also served as the District Attorney, Nuremberg, Germany, and as a Judge at the District Court of Straubing, Germany. She earned her Ph.D. (summa cum laude) from the University of Bamberg, had a couple of Fellowships, and scholarships including the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung scholarship to Harvard. I used her CV as the starting point to see if there was enough to verify her notability as an academic. Much of the information about her is in German. She has a BLP in German WP as does Hans Hattenhauer, the professor she succeeded. Atsme📞📧01:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on the admin poll
I found your comments much more useful than the one that followed (which I found demeaning). At least I know where I stand. Should I go ahead and delete my polling request from that page? Lottamiata (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lottamiata. I wouldn't say it's demeaning. It's probably a foretaste however of what you would get a lot of at RfA, and you'll get a lot worse if you are an Admin. Chris is a very experienced editor whose participation on Wikipedia I regard very highly even if occasionly we don't share the same opinions. His comments are usually more detailed, but like me, he can also sometimes be terse but not rude. He probably simply thought that I had already stated most of what needed to be said. I'm sure that your heart's in the right place, and of course you have a life experience that would be very valuable to Wikipedia. To know what to to do, it will suffice for you to read all the advice pages, particularly the most often consulted one, WP:RFAADVICE, which I wrote. At a very minimum, you would need to contribute to Wikipedia on a balanced and diet of all areas in a regular cadence at a rate of around 300 edits a month for at least the next 12 months. Also my RfA criteria have also become a widely used guideline over the years and if you can match them, you would probably pass with flying colours. Withdraw you entry for now and I'll close it. Consider obtaining some minor rights (not all at once) particularly New Page Reviewer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message and guidance I will research more in-depth while reviewing articles again for sure its just that I did a COPYVIO and got this [1] and found this on the wikipedia español [2] Thank you FITINDIA(talk)08:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NPP Comment
Hi Kudpung, thank you for assigning NPP rights to me the other day. A couple of (probably naïve) points. Would it be worthwhile or possible to voluntarily appoint particular patrollers to the back of the queue for a month or so? I'm sure many would oblige. My second point is the amount of new pages on the backlog, by seriously experienced editors, with thousands of edits, makes me wonder if the autopatrolled right is extensive enough as it is at present. Many thanks for your time XyzSpaniel Talk Page12:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Xyzspaniel. Unfortunately we can't tell people where they have to work or what work they have to do. We must rely on their good faith. That doesn't always work either though because we know for 100% that some of the users who asked for and were given the right are just hat collecting. If there are a lot of pages in the back of the queue that are made by users whom you feel should be given the Autopatroller right, let me have a list, or just propose them yourself at WP:PERM. They must fulfill the requirement though - the number of pages (which we recently cut in half already), not including stubs or redirects, and no tags or naked URLs. What we need right now also, are for people to vote for the improvements to the tools.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is an advantage for experienced patrollers at he back of the queue, for those are mainly the articles that people did not want to deal with. There is also an advantage for experienced patrollers at the front of the queue, to quickly remove the junk which can be very quickly spotted with enough experience. I alternate. There is, btw, also a subject dependency: relatively few people can deal properly with articles that look like science, or which are academic essays, and at the back of the queued, there seems to be at this time nobody working who can deal with popular music. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[sigh...] Another day, another article I found created by a single-edit editor. How are we coming on getting the equivalent of WP:ACTRIAL passed in the present-day? I can't tell you how many horrible (i.e. should not have been created/won't survive at AfD) new articles I've come across over the past few months that were created by non-autoconfirmed editors. If we want to fix the New Article partrolling backlog, I am still of the opinion that we have to hit the supply-side, by preventing drive-by non-autoconfirmed editors from creating these [expletive] articles I keep coming across... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Well, it's been tried before, but we could lobby for the removal of article creation rights from non-confirmed users. It might be a stronger argument today, as much of the "low-hanging fruit" already have articles, so a new article may be much more statistically likely to be borderline notable or non-notable. The consequent problem, of course, is that autoconfirmation is a low barrier to anyone determined to make an article about their favourite garage band. Nevertheless, I agree that trying something is better than doing nothing, so what do you think is the scale of the task in getting that sort of change, perhaps as a trial in the first instance? --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It was unfortunate that the community asked the WMF to implement the autoconfirmed restriction in the first place; they could have done it themselves by adding something like this to the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist:
@BethNaught, IJBall, and RexxS:, bear with me even if this looks as if it’s going to be TL;DR. This issue represents a classic example of a collision between idealism and pragmatism. At the highest level it’s an area which calls for an independent, apolitical deciding body, not dissimilar to the recently created British Supreme Court that took the Law Lords away from the ‘firm’ that creates the legislature. It’s also not the the Board of Trustees which in recent times has proven to be unstable to the point perhaps, of even being wagged by the tail of the C -level staff and their CEO; it's also not our Arbcom - most certainly not, whatever their individual members might think.
There is a firm belief within the WMF that they own the project - well, perhaps they do from the perspective of American corporate law but they fail to admit that without the volunteers providing and maintaining the content there would be no encyclopaedia as we know it, no funds to provide the software and servers and no resources to pay the salaries of its servants. When asked to explain itself - an attitude which I have experienced on several very real, real life occasions - they just turn around and head for the nearest restroom on an unuttered ‘non of your business’ expression, or, as in the case of one junior staffer, actually telling a resoected editor to f*** off.
The division of labour in the WMF vs Volunteers is a false dichotomy. One of the best examples of a situation where all stakeholders do collaborate well towards a common goal is in passenger airplane manufacture. Based on their research into where people want to go, how often, and how much they are prepared to spend to get there, the airlines tell Airbus and Boeing what they want, and the aeronautics experts don’t waste millions of dollars on the research and construction of planes that nobody wants.
While overthrowing ACTRIAL, that unilateral decision taken by an employee failed to note that the Foundation itself had already introduced a major turn-around to what it claims to be ‘a founding policy’: in December 2006 it put an end to the freedom of unregistered IP users to create new articles in mainspace. Not wishing to lose face, that employee’s unilateral decision to reject the Bugzilla requests for ACTRIAL was upheld by the WMF while still ignoring that a few years earlier they had recognised the need for restricting mainspace creation. Ten years further on, the situation is far worse. New pages now have a largely subtle and sinister profile, and there are now thousands of poorly informed self-appointed patrollers doing page curation letting the wrong kind of articles in, and discouraging the right kind of authors who just need help in understanding more about article creation. The actual ACTRIAL debate was all about helping those authors rather than simply introducing a blanket legislation preventing the creation of content - while of course discouraging the creators of totally unmitigated spam and crap. No less than 524 users participated making it not only one of the most heavily subscribed RfC in Wikipedia history even today, but the consensus was carried by a massive two thirds majority. That kind of RfC doesn’t need to be re-run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the next step to actually getting something implemented to prevent non-autoconfirmed editors from creating articles? (Or, is there one?...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well if someone simply implemented the result of the proposals using something like BethNaught's title blacklist script (I think we need to allow user: and draft: space page creation), I'm sure we'd see a strong backlash because of "lack of notice" for such a "sweeping change". The first thing I'd recommend is re-reading the following:
@RexxS: The reason we refer to it inaccurately as AC-TRIAL is because althoghu we had a huge consensus, in deference to the few who opposed (who were mainly people who didn't even know what NPP is, or plain idealists defending what they wrongly thought to be a founding principle ) we offered to do it on a 6 month trial to prove that it would neither lose appropriate new articles nor good faith new editors. And that's what I personally think we should simply go ahead and do if the WMF at their Comunity Wishlist where DannyH (WMF) insisted we had to join the queue for something that is a core issue and a WMF project rather than a volunteers' letter to Santa for convenience gadgets. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: , actually, most of those links are now only of historical value although the comments ring just as true as they do today. They were run-ups (water testing, kicking the tyres) before launching the major RfC at here. The Phabricator ticket is the wrong one, its about the survey I ran prior to the commencement of development of the Page Curation/New pages Feed suite of tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that fives years is an eternity on Wikipedia, but I remember the way we were treated, and when I reviewed the pages quoted I felt that the arguments and sentiments expressed were still relevant. The phabricator ticket especially shows it, which is why I chose it: a developer baldly says "I don't think there is strong enough consensus for this" after over two-thirds of the 500+ editors participating in the RfC were in favour; you make the point that "anyone can edit" doesn't mean "anyone can create pages"; and so on. I just think that everybody looking at the issues would benefit from seeing what has gone before. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS:, I'm sorry, I hadn't realised tat the Phabricator thread had been 'folded' leaving just the tail end which is to do with the survey I launched and which under many pretexts a junior contractor kept us waiting for the results until he had published his own which were doctored to show his own personal view. Of course, I am extremely familiar with the long Bugzilla 'discussion', although apart from the participants on it very few people have taken the trouble to read it. It's probably one of the finest examples of how bungling, incompetent, and disingenuous the Foundation can be. My error at the time was not realising that I should have mentioned the 2006 restriction on editing which they had already imposed which clearly demonstrates that Wikipedia is organic and that new rules that were overlooked when it was founded have to be made as the project grows - just like seat belts were introduced for cars, first as an option, then mandatory equipment, then mandatory to wear. Then came obligatory rear seat belts, and I guess it won't be long before air bags become mandatory equipment. These precautions have all proven to be necessary even if there were no concrete stats before their introduction. These would all have to be the arguments to be made if there were to be a re-run of an ACTRIAL RfC, but I don't think it 'legally' needs a new RfC. The situation is so much worse 5 years on that it's realy a no brainer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Julius Harrison you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Syek88 -- Syek88 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewer
User:Zackmann08 has the new page reviewer right. He tagged Abdulla Oripov (politician), an article about the prime minister of Uzbekistan, as CSD A7. User:In ictu oculi, not the creator, removed the CSD tag, but Zackmann08 re-added the tag and templataed In ictu oculi for removing the tag. Then, Zackmann08 ignored repeated posts on his talkpage by In ictu oculi and continued editing. Just now, Zackmann replied with just "bombarding me with messages on my talk page does not make me respond any faster" and nothing else.
Prime ministers are obviously per notable per WP:POLITICIAN and common sense. I haven't reviewed any of his other contributions. You seem to have a good grasp on the New Page Reviewer. Should the permission be removed? Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me)20:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow really? The page was created by a WP:SPA which I mistook for being the same as In ictu oculi who then left a half dozen messages on my talk page in under 20 minutes. I was busy with tasks so I didn't respond. By the time I got a chance to respond I was not eager to engage with someone who clearly was not WP:AGF of me and was, in fact, bombarding me with message. You really think that means I should have permissions removed because I made a single mistake on one page? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the page has MULTIPLE issues, including unreferenced personal statements, long list of jobs (violating WP:NOTCV) and blatant misspellings. I tried to correct these as well but they were all reverted by In ictu oculi. I attempted to readdress them but after this message by Ramaksoud2000 I think it is best for me to just remove myself from the page. I will make no further edits to the page and will also review the guidelines (WP:NPR) for New Page Reviewers, just for good measure. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@Zackmann08: While Kudpung is sleeping on it, I'd strongly advise you to consider the real possibility that you made at least three mistakes:
You restored the CSD A7 tag that had been declined. The claim of significance was just as credible as before, and re-tagging declined CSDs is generally a waste of everyone's time.
So what can you do? Trying to defend the indefensible is not a good option. Apologising for making mistakes is not compulsory, but it is an indication of maturity. I have no idea what Kudpung will decide, but I know what I'd do in your place. HTH --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendations: Rather than practically edit warring, being too quick to demand the removal of tools from a user, using trivial arguments such as WP:NOTCV, If everyone would get back to doing some New Page Reviewing - for which they demanded the right at PERM - most preferably working from special:newpagesfeed, maybe we can get the backlog down which hasn't budged despite the several appeals that were sent to you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
(after edit conflict) A short time ago I posted this to Zackmann08's talk page, before seeing that there were a discussion going on here. I really don't want to go into all of this editor's previous reviewing here, but if this is not enough to remove the new page reviewer right then there are many previous cases that I can cite that demonstrate a lack of competence. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your attitude then you can go through the history of Zackmann08's reviewing, and in particular deletion nomination, yourself. I coiuld have saved you a lot of that work by providing diffs but if you are just going to ignore my help then you can do the work yourself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@86.17.222.157: (and all others) While I welcome any and all feedback from admins, I have no interest in threats and attempted intimidations from someone who hides behind a revolving IP. If I have made mistakes in my new page reviewing (well not IF, I know I have), then for those I apologize. I'm always learning here and try to always improve and learn from my mistakes. The lack of good faith here from some commenters is rather astounding.
Kudpung this thread was started on your talk page... If you have feedback for me, I would kindly ask that you please post it on my talk page. I'm going to unfollow this chain and abstain from commenting further. I will reiterate, that if anyone has constructive feedback for me, positive or negative, I am all ears! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out that I have made no threat nor conducted any intimidation, and nor am I "hiding" nor "revolving" nor failing to assume good faith, but merely pointing out a lack of competence to go along with the good faith, as needs to be done. I won't comment further beyond basic self-defence since Kudpung chooses to treat me as a non-person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my errors in New Page Reviewing and will try and address those concerns moving forward. To help me improve, could you explain your process for page patrolling? StudiesWorld (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You don't actually meet the minimum requirement for this user right just yet. Either I or my colleague accorded it in error. We apologise for this, but we have been so busy these last weeks setting up this new user group that mistakes can happen. However I will not remove the user right now but please read the tutorial thoroughly and follow all its links. There is a lot to learn, and please don't patrol any more pages until you have confirmed with me or Samtar that you understand what New Page Review is all about. Start here: WP:NPR, then navigate to the various tutorials and video. The whole exercise may take you a couple of hours. Good luck. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Per your message on my talk page, I noticed you added the scripts to vector.js. Try adding them to common.js as recommended. After adding the scripts to common.js, do the <ctrl>+R refresh (and log out completely and log on again if possible). And if you don't mind, use both chrome and safari to check whether you get the links on the top menu (although it should have worked in vector.js too; I just tried them out in my vector and it shows quite fine in my safari browser). I'm pinging Jens too, the best trouble shooter I know of: PrimeHunter. Thanks. Lourdes05:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Lourdes, I see them now. They are on the very top, small font link row. That probably needs explaining better in your script description page. I confirm that they work in Frefox and vector.js. BTW, Could you please remind me where I need to go to edit the headers of the New Pages Feed and the Speacial:New Pages; I can't remember. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great it worked. By the way, it should be added to common.js as suggested, as only when you add it to that does the script work in skins other than the default vector skin. (For example, if you add the script to vector.js and use the mono skin, you would only see the scripts that have been entered in common.js and not vector.js). In my script description page, I will include a clearer description right away. Also, are you referring to MediaWiki:Newpages-summary? I've already had a discussion with Xaosflux who has been very kind in adding the details to the header. Lourdes 05:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC):::*Added the descriptions (Page Curation script description, Special NewPages script description). Thank you for pointing it out. I realize the additions clarify very well. Lourdes05:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lourdes. I just now need to know how to edit the Special:NewPagesFeed. It could be an interface page that only admins can edit so I need to know where the 'edit' button is and I've forgotten. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
Your admin criteria seem well-respected, but the last point about the "I wanna be an admin" userbox is maybe too broad. I used the list of admin hopefuls (derived from the userbox) to pick out Boson, but on their RfA that userbox is being given as a reason not to support. The thrust of your criterion is to discount candidates who wanted the hat since the get go, but the wording catches anyone with the userbox: "Finally, and most importantly, people don't join the army just because they want to shoot guns, and they don't join the police force just because they want to drive a fast car with a blue light and a siren and hand out speeding fines. Which means, for those who don't get the metaphors, that users who join Wikipedia with the sole intention of working their way towards adminship don't get my support, which also means that 'I wanna be an admin someday' userbox." Most of those with the userbox didn't join with the sole or even major intention of being an admin; a way to state this could be "which also means early use of that 'I wanna be an admin someday' userbox." Fences&Windows12:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your observation Fences and windows. Yes, your interpretation of my RfA Criteria is accurate. They are my criteria and they work for me: users who join Wikipedia with the sole intention of working their way towards adminship don't get my support. There is also another important clause in my RfA criteria which you have missed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know they work for you, my point was how they are interpreted by others; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Boson. The criterion implies that using the userbox should count against a candidate and if that is not the intent, a small edit could clarify it. I'll leave it up to you.
I don't know what other clause you mean, but if you're referring to the canvassing clause that would not be a fair interpretation of my post here. I didn't check whether you've personally commented on Boson and whether you support or not. I'm not bothered by what your own criteria are or how you chose to comment on RFAs, my interest is in how your criteria are being (mis)interpreted by others. Fences&Windows13:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand uour concerns, Fences and windows. Three diffs: here, here, and the note (the one you missed) immediatetely following my RfA criterion#30. That page has been viewed 5,080 times up to 16 October 2016. I have voted on more RfA than any other editor, ever, and this is the first time it has been brought up. Do remember that the person misinterpreting my criterion #30 is very, very young - typical of the many new and young users for whom back-office areas are a magnet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientum's userbox is amusing, it's bold to stand while saying you don't want the job! I did see your note; your application of the criteria is not what concerns me. It is funny how quickly some users get drawn into the "back-office" areas, commenting as though they're an expert - I remember being bewildered by all the rules to start with. Fences&Windows13:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me how I can improve on my article. I am writing to ask about the recently deleted page of Bahren Shaari. The page was deleted at 07:59, 17 December 2016. I want to ask if it's okay to put the page back up or if it's even possible for me to edit the page now? Because I was planning to make improvements to that article but it was already taken down when I tried accessing it again today.
Your assessment of a string of reversions and the message I left on the talk page of a new user
Saving space
Kudpung, I noticed a peculiar edit on a watched article of mine, and reverted. The edit (the user had misread a source and confused 30 mm with 30 cm when reverting correct and sourced material. Common sense alone should have led the user to check twice and not leave a snide edit summary, so I checked the most recent ten or so of ninety-four edits, finding four more that I also reverted (two more were tweaked by other editors). I left this message on the editor's talk page at User talk:Theultimateboss123, diff [3], tp quote block at the end.
The diffs for my reversions are [4] (for Köppen climate classification), [5] (for Western Hemisphere), [6] (for Prime Meridian), and [7] (for Climate for the United Kingdom).
Any comments or advice? As to tone, fact, or chance of success?
On a completely different note, I worked in Thailand twice, both instances in 1980, for a total of five weeks or so, in Bangkok, Aryanyapathet, Chanthaburi, Trat, and Ubon-ratchanthani during the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea, now Cambodia again. I liked the people, though not the Bangkok traffic which at the time was choked by the street layout constrained by the almost complete lack of bridges over the canals. Thailand is one of the two or three countries I'd most like to revisit.
Wikipedia appreciates your contributions, but I believe you need to spend more time investigating before saving your edits. If you check your most recent edits you'll see that I have reverted or changed these edits at Köppen climate classification, Western Hemisphere, Climate of the United Kingdom, and 180th meridian. Some of the changes you made that I reverted were in error because you misread a reference (reading 30 mm as 30 cm) or the original material (part of Polar Bear range is south of England, some of Canada is more southerly than Northen Italy). I am not checking your edits to harass—I am checking to see if any changes need to be made. I have left relatively extensive edit summaries as to reasons. You are evidently a new editor; I think it better to let you know about my concerns early in your career here rather than let a tail of less than the best edits you can make follow you around. For the same reason I have two additional suggestions—1. Please get in the habit of leaving an edit summary for every edit that it any way changes the meaning of the material. If you use the analytical tools you can access, for any editor, by clicking on the number of edits made (while at that editor's talk page or user page), the ratio of edit summaries left to edits made. Many editors leave a summary for almost all edits where they can be left (edits that start a new section at a talk page can't be left—the section title serves as the summary—or ought). Edit summaries are a great aid in our collaborative work. 2. Consider changing your user name. Wikipedia is a collaborative process though we rarely meet face-to-face. One of our basic pillars is to assume good faith. Anything you can do to make it easier for other editors to assume good faith will make your editing easier and less stressful. Theultimateboss123 is, in my opinion, not the best choice, and maybe a name you won't wish to be stuck with a few hundred or a few thousand edits down the road. I sort of picked my user name out of a sack, before I had experience with Wikipedia. If I had known, at the start, what I do now, I think I would just have used my real name, or at least my first name. But now, 3000 edits down the road, I feel it's too late now and Neonorange is pretty neutral.
If you'd like to discuss this further, just add your comments below my signature, preceeded by a colon so that your message is indented
like this. I am watching your talk page, and this will keep the conversation easily read and in one place.
Neonorange, I'm sorry but I don't have time to look into this right now. Perhaps you should discuss it on the article talk page or with the other contributors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
I am reading on Wikipedia that he holds degrees from Harvard Business School and Kennedy School of Govt; however, it has not one reference. There is no link to find out the validity of this claim. Furthermore, on Seth Moulton's own website, he does not say he graduated from Harvard Business School or Kennedy School of Govt. He does not even mention attending these schools. His website only says that he has a degree in physics from Harvard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymarcc (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said already at WP:EAR, this has nothing to do with with editing help. You must either discuss issues like these on the article's talk page or find sources yourself nd add them. If you can find from the article history exactly who added that content you can approach them direct on their user talk page. According to strict policy you are perfectly free to remove any unsourced signifiant claims immediately, and that would certainly cover unproven academic achievements; his own website is not acceptable as a reliable source.. It would however be a courtesy to the other contributors to mention on the talk page what you have done. Please sign your posts.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Posting here to avoid mixed-messaging elsewhere
*Shrugs*, put yourself into the shoes of a fourteen year old Kudpung. "Unhealthy appetite"? for a kid, adminship is like being made an elite. It's something for a youngling to strive for, to gain the respect of the community. It's perfectly natural to me from my mere 21 year old perspective. It's a lack of maturity, yes of course. It's going to get them nowhere here, but, it's something that I think is somewhat expected. Yeah, sure, give them the gentle push and a little guidance. I support the endavour, but, let's not lose perspective. We're still talking to a kid, "unhealthy appetite" I'd be more surprised if they had zero interest in adminship than a whole heap. Personally, I'd be more direct and candid about it; "It's obvious you're interested in the adminship, quite a lot. There's a significant maturity aspect to it that few your age have. I'd advise you to find something more constructive to do with your time. If adminship comes around to you, it'll be when you're working hard elsewhere and making this project better for it. Focusing on adminship guarantees you opposes, not supports." Of course, that is just my perspective on this. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've basically paraphrased what I have told him. I'm merely a near 70 year old, but it was my profession all my life to work with children and students - and actually I was well liked and did it quite well ;) We all have different ways of saying the same thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read your message to Martin, you're right I did just basically paraphrase what you've written to him. Feel free to delete my comment and your reply to me over there to keep it decluttered. There's a slight chance that at 11am he's already asleep, if not, ah well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't delete your comment. The more people he sees involved in the problems he's causing will give him more cause to reflect - if of course he ever reads his talk page, and if he doesn't , well he won't have to be surprised if he gets put on a short leash like we're doing to a RfA disrupter right now at AN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Deletion of my page
Hi,
I created a page about a few hours ago named Tushti Bhatia but it is deleted now. Tushti is a well known figure in literary Industry and she is a successful entrepreneur running more than 3 companies. I see no reason in deleting the page. Many authors and Publishers have their page on wikipedia and so does many entrepreneurs. Please do elaborate what I did wrong there Vishal9045 (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal9045 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not meet any of our criteria for persons. Being well known or just running 3companies are not criteria for [[WP:Notability}}. Fails also to meet WP:Creative. Please read the notices on talk pages before posting messges. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You CSD flagged the above. The copyvio was a recent addition, so I would have liked to first delete the article and then undelete unaffected revs; however, there is a database replication lag limit that prevented deletion, so I've revdelled the affected revision text instead. I did not expect 1320 revisions to be too many to delete, but I guess the ghost in the database decided otherwise. I'm not even sure if you're the best person to message about this, or if it even needs to be characterised as a "problem", but since you flagged it, I thought you should at least know. Cheers! Samsara05:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Buon Natale!
May you have very Happy Holidays, Kudpung
and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and panettone!
Hi Kudpung, In Lax Vox Therapy Technique; I just explain technique and invented device. Is it advertisement? Ho can you come that result? What is your advice for that article? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atillaozbilen (talk • contribs) 12:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas Kudpung!!
Hi Kudpung, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Autopatrol permissions
I've noticed you are active at the autopatroller RFP page, and I'm curious if there's a page for suggesting the removal of permissions of a user that creates pages that could benefit from being patrolled. In this instance, I'm thinking of User:Rathfelder and the creation of articles like Healthcare on Saint Helena and a large number of nonsense categories. Thanks. Natureium (talk)
Natureium, I have left a message on Rathfelder's tp which you may wish to take note of for future reference. i don't think it's necessary to remove his autopatrolled permission - the main thing is that he is helped to overcome any shortcomings of his use of MoS and prose style. If there is further cause to template his creations then of course something must be done. The cats are another issue - after all these years as an admin I still don't know how they work so it's an area I steer clear of. Keep up the good work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kudpung, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017.
Happy editing, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉)23:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
—MRD2014 (Merry Christmas!) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
22:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
New page reviewer problem
Hi Kudpung,
I need to bring to your attention my concerns regarding a user's record since you gave the individual the new page reviewer right earlier this this month. It appears the individual is primarily using it to find articles to submit for deletion, often for flimsy or inaccurate reasons; which a look at the user's talk page indicates has already been going on for many years. Already several editors have complained that his nominations were either unclear, unexplained, based upon thewrongpolicy, or justwrong. In most cases, the user has also not even responded to those concerns. So giving this individual this particular user right has already proven problematic. I recommend removing the right, since the user is clearly unprepared to properly use it. If not, at minimum, additional monitoring of this user's right is clearly necessary. Since you gave the right, I'm bringing it to you to address first, rather than going directly to the admin board. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested that I talk to an admin the last time I posted at ANI.
I'm trying to get clarification for the community divide on WP:ATD as it applies to Miss America and Miss USA entrants, and started an RfC at WP:VPP#RfC on Miss America and Miss USA entrants, but the RfC was procedurally closed. I attempted to adjust for the objections with WP:VPP#RfC2 on Miss America and Miss USA entrants, but the RfC was again procedurally closed. I had received one response to my request for comment before the 2nd RfC was closed, and I have posted at the respondent's talk page. But at AfD the problem remains. This doesn't appear to be a problem that is going to go away by disregarding it. But I don't know how to proceed. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Unscintillating (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Unscintillating. I must admit that I also found your RfCs a bit confusing. I'm afraid I can't help you much. I seem to recall that the notability of beauty pageant contestants is a frequent cause for debate. You would need to ask someone who is more familiar in this topic area than I am. A name that comes to mind is Legacypac. He's not an admin but he knows more about the topic than I do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Unscintillating, the problem as I see it is you are over complicating this. In a non - homogeneous group such as Wikipedia, you need to use a binary question. Remember this is a decision making process, so we need to formulate what we are doing to facilitate making that decision. I am honestly not sure what exactly you are asking, but it appears you are looking for a decision on whether the winners of state level Miss America and Miss USA contests are de facto notable. So, to this end, I'll form a reasonable question and a format for discussion and voting on a page in my user space and leave a link to it here. It'll take me an hour or so. I'm doing it like this because Kudpung has a lot of stalkers on his talk and that way, they can review my work and offer suggestions for improvement. Once we've got a decent set-up, you can then copy and paste it to VPP. Not looking to discuss the issue at all, just the process issue of getting a solid RfC together. This issue has been far too contentious for far too long. I wholly support anything that will resolve it and I'm glad to help. John from Idegon (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this section is "community divide on ATD", not "community divide on notability".
In this diff, the rationale states, "Entrants may or may not be Wikipedia notable: Notability is not a key parameter for inclusion of these individuals, as Wikipedia non-notable topics can be covered as mini-bios at a suitable target topic." IMO, a community discussion on notability is a fruitless path here. Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kudpung. Take the New Page Reviewer role off. It is now a heavy chore as opposed to the joy it used to be, and the list is bigger now when I started, and I've reviewed for 8 straight days, a true Sisyphean task and real hard work, done for free, and not enjoyable. I don't think it is fair to say I'm going around looking for pages to delete. The notability standards are now so thin and tenuous, that by the time the task is finished roughly a third to a half of the planet is going to be on here. Like everybody else I've used my judgement only sending those articles to Afd which Ive looked at several times over several days. I've reviewed dozens of pages which are good quality and passed them, only passing on those which I thought were rank. The number of articles going to AFD is about a quarter of what it was 5 years ago. Yet still people complain and get spooked when I send more than a few articles to WP:AFD. Plain editing is getting very difficult to do on Wikipedia. There is zero consistency across the board. This is always somebody hovering over you, ready to horse your article at a moments notice. Every editor now has to be a policy wonk. Nobody wants it. I think this is the end for me. I'll finish my B-Diesnt and GDNA article, then I'm off. scope_creep (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Curious that X4n6 had to go back to 2006 to make his complaint. So people don't improve after 10 years of experience? Also curious how X4n6 talk page has been blanked. Perhaps to do the fact that X4n6 has been continuously edit warring the last year, and blocked for it. Something I've never been known to be complicit in. scope_creep (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PROD patrol - my first deletion proposal
Greetings!
So I made my first proposed deletion recently. It's currently about the last day to stop it, 9th day. It's exiting :). Even though it could still be reverted after that. It's Van Wolverton and I just wanted to reach out to a someone in the PROD patrol. Hope you're well.
Er, yes. My point, however, since I have been heavily involved with RfA reform for a great many years, is that those kind of questions put potential good candidates off from wanting to go through RfA to become sysops. I don't know what your home Wiki is, but as I speak several languages, I'd like to take a look and see how they do things there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Prod
While acknowledging your experience is wider, it's been my experience that prods are only useful on the most obscure of articles. Otherwise, one those "keep everything that has ever been mentioned in any newspaper magazine or on a matchbook cover" folks will simply revert it. Since one of those had already found the article in question, it was pointless. That article came on my radar after the malformed merge template was applied. Had never seen it before.
On another subject, is there a bot operator that works with WPSCH? I've got a bot-able task I'd like to see happen--updating enrollment on all articles that have it cited to NCES. John from Idegon (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you John - we all have our preferred ways of doing things. I would have PRODed it. If you have a PROD log, you can always check it to see if your PRODS are still blue linked after 7 days.
There are bots, but you'll need to give more more details of what you want one for- what's NCES? BTW, you are signed up for the school AlertBot, aren't you? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but wording query
Thanks for your co-nomination. It's much appreciated, and given that you and Ritchie333 are very active in the RfA space, I feel rather honoured to have your support. You stated, though: "usher the New Year in as Wikipedia's first new admin for 2017" I'm not sure what NinjaRobotPirate would think about it; after all that RfA closes first. Schwede6618:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
