User talk:Kudpung

Brad Herzog draft

Hi Kudpung- I am so excited because I think I have finally fixed this entry up and it will hopefully pass criteria. I know you are traveling, but I would appreciate if you would take a look. (I hope I've even sent you this message in the proper way.) Thanks! Amyherzog (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please follow this link: Kudpung: Herzog archive to the advice I gave you in February, because most of the issues have still not been addressed. If you remove all the references to Amazon, and other publishers'/booksellers' reviews and basic listings, and the subject's own website, we are not left with WP:Reliable Sources that support the claims (particularly awards), and proof of publications (ISBN). The article still reads promotional or as a resumé, and the references have still not been formatted per WP:CITE. The only thing I can see Mr Herzog as having achieved that might meet our criteria for inclusion, is his minor success due to having been a contestant on a TV show; being a staff writer on magazines, or having published a few books does not necessarily put him in the same league as, for example, Bill Bryson or G. K. Chesterton. Please read again our policies at WP:AUTHOR to establish notability, and WP:RS to establish what sources assert such notability through multiple, in-depth media coverage of the author rather than his works and books, and do bear in mind again our policy concerning your Conflict of Interest. If you can address these issues, we may be able to avoid the article being deleted.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is harder than I thought. He is the author of 4 non-fiction books, and dozens of children's books, has won awards for his writing, and has written hundreds of magazine articles, done hundreds (not joking) of TV interviews and been interviewed by newspapers dozens of times. Even though I may have a conflict of interest, he certainly belongs here. Several months ago, you offered to take this over for me. Would you still be willing to do so? I can certainly provide the ISBN #s for all his books. And I can start you off with some links to reputable outside sources (San Francisco Chronicle, Minnesota Public Radio, People magazine, PBS TV in Chicago) and perhaps we can do it that way? Here are just a few of the links:

http://video.wttw.com/video/1560185722/ http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-03-06/living/28655480_1_small-town-latest-book-rv http://www.rvbusiness.com/tag/brad-herzog/ http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/arts/x792538138/Travel-author-Brad-Herzog-visit-Framingham-Thursday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuPo9fAFzVA http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20131241,00.html http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/08/31/herzog/

Thanks so much for your help!Amyherzog (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid the focus of my work at Wikipedia has shifted to administration since we last corresponded. In any case I was unable to to find any suitable references and I feel that as you are so close to the subject you are best placed for locating the required sources. Please take a moment to read WP:RS, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:CITE as I previously suggested, because if we can't make a match, there can be no article. I'm sure that if Mr Herzog is as well known as you suggest, there will be ample top quality newspaper articles about him rather than about his books and it will be worth finding them. I'm certain also that you will be able to link to the sites of the bodies that have bestowed him with awards for confirmation. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi and thank you for the message =D

Hentaku La Blue Girl (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance

Hey, thanks. I was just not sure. I knew the dome was notable for a variety of reasons, but the Wildcat Den seemed to stand on shakier ground. The picture came from commons:User:Martinpulido's CC0 dump of dozens of building photos in Chinle and Kayenta, Arizona, including pictures of all the schools in Chinle and the Wildcat Den. (And some more mundane items...let's go inside a supermarket!) Raymie (t • c) 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazing! I don't work in the files department, but one thing is for sure, Wikipdia is not photobucket.com :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do they come from, long time passing...

So, I wondered where all the new extra random new page patrollers come from. Why do people start there? So I had a look at some recommendations.

If someone "adopts" a new user, and their first recommendations were the following, would you be worried?

"I'll also help you to identify the area you want to get yourself the most involved in. Here are a few:

Vandal fighting Recent changes patrol New pages patrol Usernames for attention Article work Creating new articles and adding content Improving articles by cleaning them up, fixing typos, etc. Creating articles which were submitted by IP addresses Deletion discussions Image maintenance

What are you most interested in? I suggest starting with some vandal fighting." (my emphasis)

I could format that as per the original, but it takes up a lot more space - hopefully the ideas are clear. Just casting around for some views. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol is a complete trainwreck and that's why we've had to look into other methods of preventing the wrong pages from being made. An [by Fetchcomms] posits some theories as to why NPP is largely carried out by very young, almost totally inexperienced users. Personally, I would like to see New Page Patroller made into a user right such as reviewer and/or rollbacker. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Websites with images

Hi Kudpung. Many thanks for your prompt advice to me at WP:EAR in response to my question about Websites with images, and for the Talkback banner on my Talk page. I have perused the policy pages you listed. Another User alerted me to {{External media}} and I have now made use of that template in a new article I am developing. See my diff. I believe this application of the template is compatible with the advice at WP:HOTLINK. Cheers! Dolphin (t) 04:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the documentation at {{External media}} demonstrates the need to observe our rules for linking to outside images. These policies are based on both copyright and technical considerations. In practice, the template is rarely used. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Assassin's Creed's talk page.
Message added 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Assassin'S Creed ^(talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

• News and notes: Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news

• In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news

• Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team

• WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia

• Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case

• Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome template

Hi, Kudpung. If you get a moment amid your travels, would you take a look at this? I think an earlier request got lost in the archives. Thanks, Rivertorch (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed trial

Kudpung, I have created a MediaWiki interface page which will be displayed to non-autoconfirmed users who try to create an article during the trial. However, I don't have access to create new articles in the MediaWiki namespace so I can't put the page in the right place. It's currently at User:Snottywong/MediaWiki:Noautocreatetext. Can you check it over, make sure it looks right, and then move it to MediaWiki:Noautocreatetext? Keep in mind that there's a lot of template logic going on inside of it which will change the way it looks depending on the namespace of the article. While it's in my userspace, it will always appear as if you're trying to create a User: page. I think I have a bugzilla account already, so I'll try and start a request there shortly. I'll post a link to it if I get it done. —SW— ^chatter 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

See bugzilla:30208. —SW— ^gossip 22:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all this SW. It's mid morning here and I've just got back in the house. I'll check this all out after lunch. Dunno what time you're on in Oregon. Catch up with you later. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Need some support on the bugzilla thread. Someone is trying to say we don't have consensus to implement the trial. —SW— ^babble 14:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I guessed we would run into problem. I've been wondering for weeks why I could find nobody o do it. Of course there is consensus for the trial - the original consensus foe the new policy was overwhelming and so is the consensus for the durtion of the trial, what more do we want? Who is the most senior person that voted on either RfC? Unfortunately ne of the people I trust most was not entirely in favour of it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The link to Bugzilla is not working - can you give me another one or a full URL? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Full URL —SW— ^converse 15:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Still can't link to it. Through Ffox it just times out, and from Safari I get this message: Safari can’t connect to the proxy server. Safari can’t open the page “https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208” because Safari can’t connect to the secure web proxy server (HTTPS). To change your proxy settings, open Safari Preferences, click Advanced, and then click Change Settings. For help with this problem, contact your system administrator. I've tried connecting through http, same story. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of weird firewall that might be blocking that site for some reason, or blocking https traffic? It looks like bugzilla only works over https. While you're figuring it out, here's what was said: —SW— ^verbalize 16:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion so far

The dissenting user (probably User:Maxsem) said this: "Call me dumb, but don't see any strong consensus here. If we simply sum the number of people supporting and opposing this change in principle, it will be something closer to 50/50. Also, lots of people opined on the need in an article creation wizard in software proper, as opposed to wiki pages. Can this possibility be seriously discussed before making such serious step?" And my response was: "I don't think this is the time or the place to second-guess the way the proposal was closed by an experienced admin. Note that over 500 editors participated, and the closing admin notes that "In this broadly attended discussion, more than two-thirds of those expressing a clear 'support' or 'oppose' opinion supported the proposal to limit article creation to autoconfirmed editors, either as a trial or on a permanent basis." No one has disputed the way this proposal was closed (and bugzilla is certainly not the place to do so). There is very strong consensus for this trial. As for a software version of an article creation wizard, that's a great idea but completely unrelated to this trial; linking the two is unnecessary and inappropriate. While this is a serious step, keep in mind it is only a trial. The trial will last for 6 months, and then this change will be reversed for 30 days while a discussion ensues on whether to make the changes permanent or to abandon the idea. Many editors have planned and worked for months to organize, propose and implement this change. I (and they) would be highly disappointed if it got hijacked on bugzilla, at the very last step of implementation."

• Could you please move the mediawiki interface page from my user space into the MediaWiki namespace so that the devs can see it? —SW— ^squeal 16:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Call me dumb if you like, but I'm not sure what the move is you want me to do. You don't need admin rights to do moves, why not just paste your template proposal into the tech discussion page below my fake examples, and link it to the devs?

The Bugzilla people have no right whatsoever to question a consensus that was clealry reached by due process, a long cooling off period before it was summarised by a particularly expert, neutral admin, and a further overwhelming consensus for the trial on the basisd that I proposed after long discussions with you and the others to reach a mini consensus on the best way to go about obtaining consensus for the trial. I think your response is perfectly apt, and it would be proper to tell the author of that message that if s/he is against the project, then they should have voted/commented with the others in the previous RfCs. Now is not the time to relitigate a policy that was recently adopted by established process. I would go so far as to accuse delaying tactics at this stage as disruptive editing whoever they are. I still can't get on to Bugzilla. The offer to vocal/video Skype me is still open - I've never been able to get the Wikipedia IRC channels to work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Regarding my request to move the page, I can't create new pages in the MediaWiki namespace or move pages into the MediaWiki namespace because I'm not an admin. I just need an admin to move User:Snottywong/MediaWiki:Noautocreatetext to MediaWiki:Noautocreatetext. Moving the page there won't cause anything to happen, but it'll just make it available for the devs to see and eventually use when they implement the trial. Also, I'm currently at work and so won't be able to use skype or IRC. There has been some more activity on the bugzilla page: —SW— ^babble 18:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

More comments

Comments from a different person than the first one: The right way to deal with this is to cut to the root of the problem: we throw brand-new potential editors directly into shark-infested waters, then yell at them for splashing at the sharks. :) I agree with the basic concern -- putting newbies right into that environment so easily often ends up harming everyone -- but I don't think it would be ideal to simply cut off new article creation without actually providing a safe place for them to go instead. This needs to be paired with a *really good user-friendly way* for new accounts to create provisional articles, have them reviewed, get mentored by real people, and get their articles moved into real article space (or at least end up finding something better to do in a less confrontational way than a scary template and speedy deletion). I would recommend at least a serious beefing up of the requests for article creation pages before trying this; a newbie attempting to create a new article definitely needs to be shepherded through some checks, and should end up with the opportunity to at least create a page -- even if it's in a sandbox area. (In the future, please consider actually reaching out to developers for feedback as well before the final stages!) And I made two responses. My first response: Can you define "beefing up"? The current en:WP:Articles_for_Creation and en:WP:Article_wizard have existed for quite some time and, in my opinion, do a good job of shepherding new users through the process of creating a new article. In addition, the error page which will be displayed to the user when they try to create a new article will give them clear instructions on how to get their article created despite being non-autoconfirmed: 1. It will direct them straight to Articles for Creation with instructions on how to use the Article Wizard to create a new article and have experienced editors review it. This process has worked for IPs creating new articles for years. 2. It will also provide a link to start the article in their userspace, with clear directions on how to get the attention of an editor to review the article and move it into mainspace for them when they're done. Or, they can just wait 4 days and make 10 edits, which is a very low bar to achieve. Can you identify the specific deficiencies in the current Articles for Creation and Article Wizard systems which you believe need to be "beefed up"? My second response: Overall, I think we're thinking too hard about this. We're trying to figure out all of the problems that this change might cause and fix them beforehand, when in fact one of the major purposes of this trial is to actually identify what problems are caused (if any), what the nature of those problems are, and what the most effective way would be to fix them. If we're just blindly guessing that problems will be created at en:WP:AFC and vaguely insisting that we need to "beef up" something before the trial starts, then we might be implementing non-ideal solutions to non-existent problems. I think a far better idea is to actually implement the trial for a limited amount of time, collect some real data about its effects, and implement the most effective fixes to solve any problems caused.

I've finally been able to get myself registered with Bugzilla and I'm in the process of drafting a comment about their concerns. I still don't understand what you want me to do with this page move. I can edit the en.Wikipedia interface, and I guess that includes any templates that are used sort of like edit notices together with all their embedded php and sub-template calls, but I don't wnt to do anythig that will go live just yet. I think the template you propose should be copied and pasted in <pre></pre> tags to the tech page and it should be up to the Bugzilla people to look at it there. Superfluous however, considering that it's not their mandate anyway, because I can do it without any further discussion as part of a policy that has already been agreed. If we get much more resistance to this software implementation, we'll have to consider writing to Gardner. However, I'm sure that among the staunch supporters of this new policy and its trial, there are other admins whose voices carry more weight than mine. Finally, as the Bugzilla disuccion is not a policy debate, perhaps one could canvas for support from some of the participants of the main and the trial discussions. without infringing on WP:CANVASS - after all, they've already !voted for what they wanted and it's been greed by consensus. Who are these Bugzilla people anyway? Some kind of state security agents or MI5? Are they volunteers like us or are they paid? It's nearly midnight here, but if you want to talk, the laptop will be on my bedside table. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW: Bugzilla is showing my personal email and not my user name - heck, why is everything so damn complicated? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found the bugzilla interface to be horrible. FYI - I just posted a message to the Head of Reader Relations at the Wikimedia Foundation. See User talk:Philippe (WMF)#Help with implementing a trial. I heard from some very experienced editors that he would be a good WMF contact who might be able to push this change through. I don't know who this Gardner guy is, but it may be worth starting a dialogue with him as well. Attack things from both sides. Also FYI - I'm going to be out of town away from computers for the next 2-3 days, until around this time on Sunday. I might be able to check in once or twice during that time, but I might not. I also have another 7-8 hours left today before I go to bed. So, after that, this will probably be in your hands for a few days. —SW— ^yak 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to tell Philippe you've been working with me on this project - I've done some stuff in the past for the WMF that he was seemed pleased with. Sue Gardner is the CEO of the WMF. Meanwhile I'll have a word with Blade. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I dropped your name there. —SW— ^gab 23:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've commented over there as well; I'm 3 hours ahead of you, Snottywong (CT), and I'll be around this weekend. I'll see if I can't catch you on Skype after I get back from work (which'll be about 8:00 your time, Kudpung). Also, if you'd like to read the decidedly forceful message I left Sue Gardner a few months ago, check Archive 2 of her talkpage; if you can't find it I'll link you to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember that conversation and the comment Philippe chimed in with. They may have cut their Wikipedia teeth on NPP, but they were not aware of the 1,000s of pages falling of special:new pages after 30 days, or re-patrollig the patrolled pages, or patrolling the patrollers. They won't necessarily have been following the discussions nor be aware of the trainwreck that NPP actually is, nor of the work we have been doing for nearly a year to identify the problems. With the exception of a tiny handful of established editors and admins having an occasional stab at it, NPP is the playground of totally inexperienced new editors, many of whom are either extremely young, and/or are not even native English speakers, and are impossible to educate, short of topic banning them from NPP. The WMF, IMHO with all due respect, are looking down the telescope from the wrong end. They appear, from the tone of Sue's comments' to be far more concerned at a possible loss of the 0.2% of new article creators who might one day become regular editors (in the face of a natural decline anyway), than the 1,000 creators per day who inundate the Wikipedia with sheer unadulterated crap, vandalism, spam, copyvio, and attack pages. Thing is, since Oct 2010, SN and I have been doing both the math and the first hand empirical study with a blind control based on the work of users such as Blade. The WMF has been doing it bit but has been playing with either outdated stats, or the wrong kind of stats. Bottom line is, this trial has consensus and must go ahead and preventing it by attempting to negate the perfect, long, and well summarised consensus, or to block the software requirements, will be gross breaches of Wikipedia's own policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the basic problem Malleus spelled out at that RfC; established editors can't be left behind in the quest for new editors. Although in hindsight I came off a little stronger than I intended in my comment there, I'm sick of being treated like a Karen in Burma because I'm an NPPer (which won't endear me to many to start), I happen to see the extent of the problem, and I want to force the issue to resolve it (not that I'm anything on the order of Zoya Phan, but I like to use her story to draw parallels on Wikipedia because I wrote almost all of that article). I eagerly await the commencement of this, and in a related vein I hope I didn't come off as snarky to the second person I responded to at the Bugzilla page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult enough getting anything changed for the better at Wikipedia through our process of of gaining consensus. Too many crackpot ideas are posted at the VP while too many editors prowl round the discussions and contribute to them in the hope it will look good on their future RfA, instead of getting on with content; while many who missed or weren't interested in the main RfC barge in at the last moment (as they did at BLPPROD), wanting the whole thing re-debated because they couldn't be bothered to read through the RfC and all its preceding research and discussions. Even here on the autoconfirmed issue, we have one regular policy !voter who says a lot at all RfCs but rarely commits clearly to one direction or another - they even claimed at one stage that NPP is an unnecessary process. I'd like to see what alternative solutions they could come up with, but they never do. I've racked my brain for 10 months for another solution to the 1,000 or so useless pages that get created every day, and I think it's an insult to the intelligence of the established users to expect them to repair those pages and find sources and arguments to keep them, and mollycoddle those SPA who create them. I am wholly committed to this new rule of ours and I'm convinced that it is a most positive step and the only solution possible until Wikipedia adopts the same controls over registration and posting that are exercised by any common or garden web forum. I would even go one step further and have an automated script that vets every new registration for sockpuppetry. The camp that insists on preserving the right of absolutely anyone to post live to mainspace (and patrol new pages without any experience or maturity whatsoever), are going to be responsible for the ultimate demise of Wikipedia as a respected knowledge base. There is also the fact that because nothing ever gets physically deleted from our servers, there are roughly 1000 times more 'deleted' pages and millions of deletion discussions harboured on WMF hard discs than live articles. That costs a lot of the money that all the annoying begging banners are yelling for and which some of us even donate together with our voluntary editing time. Rant over. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Things are not looking good. See the latest comments on bugzilla where someone is essentially instructing the devs to not implement our request. It's time to pull out all the stops, and contact anyone at WMF who might be able to make a difference. It might even be worth contacting Jimbo, who (I think I read somewhere) supports the concept behind this trial. However, it's probably best to not contact him on his user talk page, unless you want to drag another 200 editors into the discussion in one fell swoop. —SW— ^squeal 14:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaving in an hour or two, and won't be back until Sunday evening (Pacific time). I'll check in if I can find internet access out in the desert... —SW— ^squeal 14:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whose authority he is operating under, but in my opinion there is a strong possibility that Brendon might be in serious breach of Wikipedia ethic, and may be undermining one of the fundamental pillars of policy by banning the devs from addressing the community's request. It's the kind of action that could cause the mature, dedicated editors and admins who strive to maintain quality of the project to retire from Wikipedia. NPP has proven to be irreparable - the simple solution of making new creators wait for a day or two before their new pages can go live is extremely deserving of the trial that has been agreed by double consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the last Bugzilla comment there answers that question, so hopefully that will calm things down a bit. I'm around for the rest of the day (it's 4:20 PM my time), so give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can't get you on Skype. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Hajatvrc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI, take a look...

I know you are just mentoring Assassin's Creed with respect to NPP, but take a look at User talk:Bill william compton#Wikified articles. He seems to go from being problematic in one area of WP to another. LadyofShalott 22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I'll leave him a message. I've already warned him some while ago that his good intentions are in fact disruptive. I hate the thought of having to block someone who is editing in good faith, but at the end of the day a short block might be our only option. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've left a message here. Taking him to ANI won't help, so if he still does not understand, a short sharp block by any admin (I don't really want to have to be the one to do it though) may be necessary to help him understand that even good faith editing can be highly disruptive. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Assassin's Creed's talk page.
Message added 07:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Assassin'S Creed ^(talk) 07:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding RfA reform

Hi, Kudpung. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011#What has happened. Thank you, Swarm ^{u | t} 04:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

• Wikimania: Seventh annual Wikimedia conference concluded in Haifa, Israel

• News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay

• In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news

• WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close

• Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your message to me???

I received a message on my talk page that you had a message for me on your talk page. But I couldn't find it. Puzzled in Toronto. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but that was a long time ago and I really can't remember what it was. You may wish to search my talk page archives, but it probably wasn't important. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford) FL

Hi Kudpung, any chance you could revisit the FLC page for this article. I think I have resolved all your comments, but the FLC is currently rather stagnant as there are still officially unresolved comments. Thanks, Glanis^Talk 18:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

New page patrolling and something I noticed whilst doing it

It's almost as if every user with a redlinked talk and userpage who creates an article is just another SPA. Take Toshofbarra and Interactive.data for instance.

Just a bit weird, isn't it? --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 07:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not weird. Just an undeniable fact. That's why consensus passed a new rule to allow only autoconfirmed users to be allowed to post new articles live to mainspace. However, in spite of the research, stats, and overwhelming consensus reache by and RfC with a 500+ participat and authorise the site softawre change. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Check your email

There's an OTRS issue we need your help with. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of autoconfirm trial

I've been emailing with Jimbo about the trial. He's in support of the trial and it sounds like it will eventually be implemented, however he had some good points about the implementation. We have some more work to do for planning the trial. Besides, the better we can plan the trial, the better chance we have of making it a permanent change. I'm going to create another working page for a few of us interested editors to discuss some more aspects of the trial, mostly concerning the user interface and giving non-autoconfirmed users good alternatives to get their articles created. I'll probably have some time to do this in the next day or two, and I'll let you know here when I do. I think it would be good to have 4-6 editors contributing to this, I'll invite the devs on bugzilla too. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 15:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF

WP:AGF. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

AGF yourself please, or at least read up on some of our policies about discussing things first. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)