User talk:TonyBallioni

Patrollers

Check this talk page out for CSD-declined messages. I have placed my boilerplate on literally hundreds of users. This was one of the reasons for creating the NPR right, but where the community flatly refused to allow us restrict new page tagging to experienced users only. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, I'm aware. I was debating taking it to ANI the next time it happened. Draft:Tallinn Central Library was tagged by that user 1 minute after creation. It was in piss poor shape then, but a quick Google search showed that as the first public library in a country, it would likely be notable. Hopefully I can get it in shape for a DYK. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

We have some incremental user warnings I made at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#UW reviewer, but of course nobody much is interested in using them. They were supposed to be incorporated in he Page Curation control panel. I use them when my first boilerplate fails to work. I've always been very reluctant to drag inexperienced patrollers to ANI, unless of course their disruption becomes almost borderline vandalism. To do so now would also feed the blatant lies the WMF is telling on their proposal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I was unaware of those. Thanks for pointing them out. Very good point on the ANI. My concern is generally that it is ridiculous CSD tagging and other such things that make the NPP project look bad in the eyes of the larger community. Hopefully your message to that user will move them towards other work for a bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What we should have done (my fault we didn't) when we were debating the creation of the New Page Reviewer Right, was to suggest disabling the CSD, and PROD tags in Twinkle for non rights holders. It would have made sense, ensured that no pages are wrongly tagged for deletion and avoided new users from being bitten. It would have been technically very easy to implement (most things in Twinkle are). However, as Rob knows only too well, there was so much kicking and yelling about Twinkle on those RfCs that to even mention it would probably have caused the loss of the consensus. In retrospect however, it's something that could now be clearly (and cleanly) argued for, but my name would be mud if I were to launch the RfC for it - the community was getting fed up with me running the NPP circus for years (or so I felt) and that's why I gave up doing anything concrete for it. All I do now is kick and yell (very mildly, however) to the point of receiving emails from the WMF telling me my participation on the topic is not appreciated. Go figure... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Was that actually an email you received? If so, I strongly recommend it be made public. Whatever my thoughts on the matter (and I was and still am strongly opposed to the Twinkle business), it's wholly inappropriate for the WMF to try to dissuade an editor from participating in any given topic. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Rob, the email was real enough. I don't make things like that up (or anything else) - remember there is a large number of prominent Wikipedians who know me personally and I glad to say we consider ourselves as friends although we are a very mixed bag. There must be a reason why we all find ourselves round the same tables in restaurants and leaning over the same bar tops all over the world. I've discussed the email already with a member of Arbcom, but at the moment it's probably best to just do nothing and I'm not going to commit an indiscretion and make it public - we might actually need the Foundation to do some programming. Suffice it to say that if we were a corporation, some heads would be rolling. BTW, what happened to C-Level Wes Moran? Everyone is being schtum on that too. I had a very disturbing Skype conference with him a few weeks ago. If you do want something to read though, you might like this. It will sound familiar in parts and it's got stats that will make some people squirm with unease - there's a lot I haven't published elsewhere - yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been following T166269 but I've been waiting to see what happens before commentig as I have just now. If I were to see those stats in graphic form such as at User:Scottywong/Article_creation_stats, I think they would be fairly similar. I applaud MusikAnimal / MusikAnimal (WMF) for coming up with what he has though, and it becomes increasingly clear why the Foundation didn't want us to have them. Kind of scores another few points for the essay I wrote last week. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this email, which is none of my business, but I can assure you WMF had no intention to hide statistics from the community. The database is public for anyone to do analysis. Here however computing the requested data is a tedious process and we want to make sure we give accurate numbers. Thanks for your patience! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

MusikAnimal (WMF), as I said in phab, thank you for this. I'm too busy now to look too much at the update you just posted there right now, but I also think that what you just pulled is useful in addition to the 90 day request because it shows what happens after everything has left NPP. I did some basic pie charts in a spread myself last night. I haven't uploaded them because I wanted to wait for the final picture, but they could help with visualization of the data you have pulled. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung and MusikAnimal (WMF): I've done a basic graph of the info that was published last night . TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The data may be public for anyone who knows how to extract it - and even those at the WMF who are paid to are having a hard time of it. I've appealed without success to get them to make the same kind of graphs Scottywong did six years ago without a murmur, but the WMF is scared of the results because they will reinforce once again that ACTRIAL is the only answer. In any case, the bar chart already does it - the number of deletions is conclusive enough to roll out ACTRIAL without taking a second breath. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, here are pie charts: new users and autoconfirmed users. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That's good. Nobody can dispute that. Except of course Horn will insist that it only appleis to the day the stats were drawn from. I think it's absolutely more than sufficiently conclusive to implement ACTRIAL. I don't see any other solutions, and goodness knows I've tried hard enough even to the point of being told by email from the WMF to shuddup, and insulted by them again here. The key is DGG's long and accurate comment which I have reproduced at the end of User:Kudpung/NPP#Conclusion - we are not a bunch of errant schoolchildren. If somebody can Skype me and walk me in real time through the process of installing one of the suggested scripts that will implement ACTRIAL, I'll put my name to it. Nach mir die Sintflut. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the statistics MusikAnimal drew provide a snapshot that actually might be better than what I originally asked for because they are outside of the backlog. I still want to see the 90 day numbers, but I doubt they will be much different. Both the raw numbers and percentages are a great argument for ACTRIAL: if you're talking about ~1000-2000 pages a week that would otherwise be deleted, thats massive and will save time regardless of whether there is a 1:1 review tradeoff. 80% being unacceptable for a live article is also massive. I think you know that I disagree with you about not needing an RfC to pull the trigger on ACTRIAL, but I certainly see why you would want to do it yourself. I also lack the technical skills to implement so would need someone else to assist if an RfC affirmed the 2011 consensus, or if it was determined that we could pull the trigger now (which I know a lot of people at ]]WP:NPPAFC]] wanted to do in the fall of 2016.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

MusikAnimal is only doing what he has been told to do by his superiors. He won't provide a larger sample unless they ask him to and for obvious reasons they won't. I'm getting really upset now at the interference that's coming from the Foundation (Wikipedia talk:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#Refactoring restored). I'll find someone to walk me through one of the scripts for ACTRIAL - it's time for a kneejerk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: No, I collected this data on my own accord, though my superiors are in support of it. I did not refactor the suggested improvements in a WMF capacity, I wanted to help implement the easy requests and that page was really difficult to go through so I tried to clean it up. This is all me. Please stop making insane assumptions that there is some secret WMF agenda. Myself as a volunteer, employee, and the WMF as a whole want to help. Same team. Please, please, understand that. I have a larger sample of data I'll be able to share today, and I even have plans to get historical data – several years – and continue to get data and offer it to you in real time. I'm doing this for fun but my superiors are letting me do it during business hours. I will provide this data, but just know you're really taking away the fun out of it, not as an employee, but as a believer in the Wikimedia movement. I don't know how you get off being so rude to people who are trying to help. I am human. I have feelings — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, I could say the same - especially the insults that are being emailed to me by your paid coleagues. 'You' are taking the fun out of volunteering here, as I already stated, and the WMF is determined to loose us some users. I don't own the NPP/NPR project, but I built it up and fostered it for years, I'm not going to let you or your colleagues dismantle all that unpaid work without responding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: FWIW, Quiddity and I have been trying to get better stats since October (T150369, T149021). Unfortunately, I'm not an Analyst so all I can do is keep poking other people to help. I even created a research project proposal at meta:Research:Wikipedia article creation II, but it's not something I can do on my own. Believe it or not, I'm just as frustrated as you are about our lack of data and I'm continuing to push people to work on it. The resources at the WMF are stretched thin, however, so it's a slow process. I'm not saying we're doing a good job, I'm just saying we're still working on it and we're not trying to hide anything. Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, if any WMF employees are insulting you, please let me know. That is definitely not OK. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It came from a senior level, Ryan. I have discussed it with Arbcom. It's not right that the Foundation should treat us volunteers as their (unpaid) workforce, but for the moment we are prepared to let it go - relations are already sufficiently strained as I'm sure you appreciate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

When Will I Be Unblocked

Dear Tony, the moment i asked you to help, i got blocked. when will i be unblocked. please help. i have started writing on my own. i will make sure that whatever i write doesnt match the content on the websites. thanks. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, you are not currently blocked, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to post on my talk page. Regarding copyright, just always make sure you write things in your own words. Summarize what the source says rather than paraphrasing it, and you should be fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, i m not able to write a new article, thats why i asked. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, what is the exact title of the article you are trying to create? ~ GB fan 14:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Prakash Mallavarapu Jeromeenriquez (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, you should be able to create Prakash Mallavarapu. What is the wording of the message you get when you try to create it? Is there a difference between that and Mallavarapu Prakash? ~ GB fan 14:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ken Krawchuk

Hi Tony, I'm not getting paid by any political party and haven't received any payments from any political parties or candidates except from a candidate in the PC Party of Ontario. I'm actually from Canada and heard about Ken Krawchuk on a facebook group, saw his videos and agreed with a lot of the stuff that he said and googled the Pennsylvania election page to see if there was anything on him and when I didn't see him mentioned, I've made a page for him. I've also contacted someone involved in the campaign to ask questions about him, but I don't have any personal or paid connections to anyone involved in the campaign.

I might be working on a canvassing database service, but that would be open-source and would be able to use by anyone, and may contact smaller campaigns like Krawchuks's about subscribing to that service if it is completed, which will be priced lower than alternatives. However, it would be open to all political candidates of all political parties. I'm not even sure whether I'd be able to do that or not, so right now there is no expectation of payment.

The information on the page should be unbiased though - it's just basic biographical facts. Only issue I see is that it's only source is Krawchuk's website, so I could try adding some more information from other sources.

Swil999 (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Swil999, I've moved your comment to the bottom of my talk page (that's where new comments go.) You also don't need to add the help banner when posting here directly. Thanks for the response re: paid advocacy. I only asked because you posted a lot of things about the possibility of winning and discrimination against third-party candidates at the AfD, which is something you might expect from a staffer. No harm no foul, just wanted to check. I still think the page should either be deleted or redirected to the main gubernatorial race page, but your input at the discussion is welcome and other editors will have a chance to look it over. Thanks again for responding. All the best, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I was curious as to what the political scenes are in PA and what the guy's chances are, so I just did a bit of research on the polling there and the 1/7th of the vote was said in one of his interviews. I like the guy though. If I lived in PA, I'd probably be voting for him. Swil999 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Also learned about "finacial penalties" on Krawchuk's facebook video and googled it to search what it was: https://www.facebook.com/KenK4Pa/, this is the video https://www.facebook.com/askalibertarian/videos/1860433584195089/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swil999 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Law & Order: True Crime

Hi. May I ask why you just moved Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders to Law & Order: True Crime, even though the consensus on the talk page seems to be that it should be moved to Law & Order True Crime? Bennv3771 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Bennv3771, because it is late and I made a copy-paste mistake and forgot to remove the colon when entering it into the page swap script. It should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for moving it again. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear TonyBallioni, thank you very much for the guidance. I really needed it. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Hey, TonyBallioni. I am not edit warring, but maybe you could help me. The entry I restored at ANI was deleted "for being a sock", but the IP address is not blocked nor was it tied to the sock investigation linked by the most recent deletor. Could you look into that? Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Newimpartial, you were edit warring. Reverting twice when two different editors have done the same edit is not a violation of 3RR, but it is edit warring behavior, especially on the most watched page on en.wiki. I wasn't following the thread, but I wanted to warn you before you crossed the bright line. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wouldn't go there. The matter is that these editors both deleted that post claiming that the account posting it was blocked, which it wasn't at the time. But now it is, so it's all good. Clearly I misread the situation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I hold myself to 1RR and then discuss with an editor after that. It's a good practice, especially for high visiability, high drama places like ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Unreviewed Articles

Dear TonyBallioni, can you please review some of my articles which are still unreviewed and it has been very long that they are still pending. And please check if i deserve any 'Barn Star'. Thanks. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeromeenriquez, I just reviewed three archbishops. They're all pretty basic stubs, and the sourcing could be improved by getting better sources (Google Books and/or Google News could help.) I didn't see any copyright violations and they meet our inclusion criteria, though. Also, as an FYI, Wikipedia does not reference itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Glass escalator marked for deletion

Tony, could you explain to me further why you marked my article for deletion? Each section has credible scholarly sources and the topic had been well researched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sls269 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sls269, the notability was part of it, the other reason was that it was written like an essay or academic paper, which Wikipedia does not publish. Due to your query, I've removed the tag and replaced it with a neutrality tag for now. I'll review it more thoroughly later, but it also could be a candidate for merging into Glass ceiling, which already contains a section on this. It might make the most sense for you to add content there, and have the page you created redirect to that page. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I think redirecting my page was not the best action to take. My page provided credible information on the topic of the glass escalator. It is concept in sociology that deserves its own page for others to read. Only giving it a subsection another similar but different sociological concept does not do it justice and leaves out much necessary information. Sls269 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sls269, I've restored the content and opened a merger discussion on Talk:Glass ceiling. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Globitex

TonyBallioni, just deleting my page does not solve the issue. Please edit the page, if you like, but not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licere (talk • contribs) 17:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Licere, the page reads as an advertisement and doesn't explain why it should be in Wikipedia, a general purpose encyclopedia. You are free to contest the issue on the talk page of the article, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons main space

As the kids say, OMG!! It's so great to hear someone say what I've long felt, that the Commons mainspace is virtually useless, and that the equivalent on Commons to the Wikipedia mainspace is the Commons' categoryspace. After I tried to delete a couple of sad, useless "articles", and was reverted by admins, I gave up and just kept my opinion to myself. Thanks Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You'll see some Commons people say that themselves. I came to this opinion when I found what was clearly a stock photo of a mass produced taco from a supermarket in one of their main space pages titled something like Authentic Mexican Cuisine. I of course, cannot find the page I am referring to now, because their main space is not functioning and their search feature (correctly) points you to the categories. I'm sure you're also familiar with what pops up when you search fruit loops on Commons (NSFW if you don't know). Thats not a main space issue, but it shows how their categories really are the only think that makes it possible to find things over there. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken this is not a social network/forum/whatnot, but let me return your OMG by saying that when I accidentally came across this paragraph, I thought that it might be the best thing I have read in an AfD in a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, pearls of wisdom just flow through my fingers like koans carried on the winds of eternity. <g> Seriously, thanks very much, it's always very nice to be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if...

Hello! I don't know if this comment was a intended to be a reply to BMK or not. I think you was trying to reply User Zfish118.

I offer my apologies if I were not understanding you. English is not my mother language so I might have difficulties. --Grabado (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Grabado, it was meant as a point on its own, which is why I didn't reply directly to anyone. The comment I was referencing was That's not why we're here, and the purpose of categorization is not, as another editor put it "an epistemological exercise" but, as TonyB said above, to help people find things, by BMK. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Grabado (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing userbox pages

Thanks for reviewing my new userbox about WP:PAID earlier. I was wondering if you could cast a cursory glance over the other two userboxes that I created today, as I am unsure if they are fit for purpose at the moment:

• User:Stormy clouds/Userboxes/Single-purpose Accounts
• User:Stormy clouds/Userboxes/ITN/Candidates

Sincerest thanks in advance, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Stormy clouds: I don't see a problem with them. I actually only reviewed it because I talk page stalk Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and the curation toolbar popped up and I didn't see any issues so I clicked the green check mark. FIM is actually much better to ask about user page things than I am: he actually patrols them whereas I mainly accidentally stumble upon them after finding a spammer in main space. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: - thanks a million, for both the reviews and the advice. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio clarification on Mythicist Milwaukee

Assuming you're not Wiki hounding me and just happen to check on one of the pages crated by me, Wiki allows close paraphrasing when there are limited number of ways to say the same thing and Brief quotations of copyrighted text can be used to illustrate a point or establish context, and more importantly the text in question is in Open domain.Redhat101 Talk 05:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Redhat101, no, not Wikihounding. I looked at your talk history since you had a blank talk page and did an Earwig check on a previously G12ed article, which is my standard practice anytime I come across one on Wikipedia because people often accidentally include copyrighted content into Wikipedia, especially on pages that they are trying to fix from previous copyright violations. As for the Wikia source, it appears to have been itself a copy-paste copyright violation from the Mysthicist Milwaukee website that I listed in the edit summary. Copy-paste plagiarism with words in between the clauses is still plagiarism and a copyright violation. I'll ask Diannaa to take a look at the possible violation and rev del request. If I am wrong here, I apologize, but as what appears to be the original source did not have a visible free license declaration, I assumed it was under copyright. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:As far as i can check That Wikia is operated by Mythicist milwaukee staff, so its not a copyright violation as they purposely released the content to free domain.Redhat101 Talk 05:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Redhat101, thank you for the link to that and for clarifying. It did not appear on the copyvio source check. I removed the text because when I went to the original source there was no copyright information available, which under the copyright law of the United States, we have to assume means that it is copyrighted and not available under a free license. The material in question also was not on Wikipedia under the terms of the free license you are claiming: CC-BY-SA requires that all content be attributed, which was not the case until your recent revert (either in-text or in the edit summary). I'll defer to Diannaa on this as I've never encountered a case where the source content appears to still be under copyright but there is also a Wikia source that is a plausible release. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Publishing something online does not release it into the public domain. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Redhat101, all prose you add here must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Copyright law and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy.

Regarding this specific case, the page http://www.mythicistmilwaukee.com/what-we-do/ has existed since at least April 2015 and the Wikia page was created in November 2016. There's no way to prove that the people who started the Wikia page had permission to copy the content from www.mythicistmilwaukee.com. So my opinion is that it's not okay to copy from either webpage. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa, for the consult. That was my thought as well on the issue, but always good to confirm for future cases as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, Dianaa - are there other circumstances in which we should assume that ownership of content on part of a website (www.mythicistmilwaukee.com) differs from the ownership of another part of a website, in the absence of an explicit statement on said website? I was under the impression that we should treat a website as if it were a single entity holding copyright, unless there were explicit comment to the contrary. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not Diannaa,NI, but if you're asking about this specific case the issue is that the Wikia site is a different website than the origin source and was created after it. Without a specific release we must assume the licensing of the origin source is still the licensing the text is under. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Tony is correct, these are two different websites, not subpages of the same website. Without proof to the contrary, we have to assume that whoever copied the material to the Wikia page did not have permission of the copyright holder to do so. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, okay. So what would be needed would be something like a specification of the November 16, 2016 announcement, but one that explicitly releases that text under CC? Newimpartial (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the easiest solution would be a notice on all pages of the site where a copyright notice would go releasing it under a compatible free license. A simple statement on a webpage could work depending on the phrasing, but if there are contradictory licenses, we always assume they mean the stricter one. In a recent case, there was a public domain statement on a California government website but also a copyright symbol and claim. We went with the claim that it was copyrighted.

In cases of contradictory licensing, I always consult with Diannaa like I did here, because I believe two sets of eyes are better than one, but in terms of what you should upload to Wikipedia, always assume it is copyrighted unless you have a clear statement otherwise that is not contradicted anywhere. Also, at some point I'm going to write the essay WP:OWNWORDS which will point out that text which is lifted, even if it is available for free use, is very rarely ever suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia based on writing style alone. Copying a mission statement falls into this category since the prose is simply not our style. The question would be whether it should have been rev del'd, which D determined that it needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL

I assume you've seen this latest from Horn. It sounds good on the surface but for me it comes with mixed blessings and we need to proceed with caution. I'm not sure we would want the WMF to take over ACTRAL. That was never part of the 2011 project. Wresting it out of the hands of the volunteers gives them the power to manipulate it to their own ends. The last two times they did it, it also involved NPP and while it slowed down developments of our work, it ended in disaster for their reputation. What they need to understand is that their 'offer' now comes a bit late, the damage is done and Horn's department has already lost any of the trust and confidence that the community might have had. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, yes, I've seen it. I'm going to post a response and I might notify Toby Negrin of it on his meta page. I am cautiously optimistic, but I also do think there are things that need to be addressed from a trust standpoint. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

For Kudpung (and anyone else who may be watching: this was my response. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Elaboration required

Hi, I tried to read the WMF has agreed to ACTRIAL in principle, but it is too much confusing. Would you please put it in nutshell? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Kiran, I'm not going to put it in the nutshell template on the page, but if you mean explain it here: The WMF has agreed to help implement a trial of restricting page creation to autoconfirmed accounts (referred to by the name WP:ACTRIAL). They want to have a role in the rollout and will help by providing statistics to the community for what everyone agrees will be a required followup RfC on whether to make it permanent. This is the explanation of the facts here.

The current question is whether or not an RfC is required to implement it. Kaldari thinks one would be helpful, but said it would not be required if everyone agrees it isn't. Kudpung and myself both were prepared to have an RfC to renew the 2011 consensus in order to implement it without the help of the WMF if they did not want it to go forward. We believe now that the WMF is open to it, that another RfC is not needed because the 2011 consensus was strong enough and diverse enough portions of the community have been involved in this discussion. You are of course free to disagree, but I'm also explaining my views since it is my talk page :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

lol. I was not asking for a nutshell template. :-) I was asking you to explain it to me in brief. Thanks for the explanation though. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that the WMF has agreed in principle to to ACTRIAL, a new RfC would be superfluous and time wasting. We are fortunate in that additionally, they have offered to to use their resources to provide the stats needed to monitor the trial, because with Scottywong having retired, that might have proven not quite so easy for the community, or at lest those volunteers who could do it but don't have time. We just need to be sure that the stats are correct and not delayed and doctored to prove us wrong as they were in the 2011 Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Survey which I designed and organised. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, you might be interested in Kudpung's response. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I am rather disappointed in the attitude displayed by Sadads (WMF), and what I perceive as strawman arguments. I have expended huge amounts of energy driving this issue forward, even indulging the Foundation by paying lip service to their offer of help under the guise of providing a stats expert. It's all delaying tactics, just like the very insincere Skype discussion Wes Moran had with me 6 months ago and the 1-hour Skype with Jonathan Morgan a month or two before that. The person I really would like an audience with is Maher, but she is even less accessible than Theresa May. Scottywong has returned from retirement to make a couple of brief comments. I just wish he would stick around some more until we have better cooperation from the Foundation. I don't want to let up on the work I'm doing just yet, but I'm so jaded I'll soon end up saying something I'll regret. I'm still sore at their totally inadmissible attempt by email to muzzle me. Scottywong's influence and technical knowledge (and moral support) would be a great boost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, yes. As MrX pointed out, the argument that it would be disruptive is essentially rhetoric without any argumentation to back it up, and the off-wiki issues have been dealt with in detail before. As I mentioned, I also don't really buy the disruption argument because I'm pretty confident many editors already think ACTRIAL is permenant. While this is like you say our Manhattan Project it is my belief that except for those of us who work actively in NPP, very few members of the community will notice, which is the hallmark of any good back end change. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why Sadads is even chiming in. I could have saved the huge blunder his department made and the huge clean up (which I organised) by the community of stuff that didn't even come from a traditional English speaking region, but Schulenberg wouldn't listen and rudely slammed the door in my face. That experiment cost/lost an estimated $0.5mio and a lot of NPPers who vowed they would never patrol a page again. ; it's my guess it was all engineered as an excuse for them all to go on a sight seeing junket to Pune. Now they say they haven't got the cash or 6 months time to to do what we need for NPP?

The en.Wiki is a self-governing entity and we're not going to be duped by another Keyes-Fung effect. Also, (…)the Technology department is not responsible for decisions about, say, how to balance serving existing editors with attracting new ones or how to improve our content quality without compromising our openness. - Neil P. Quinn (WMF), Product Analyst. on the hiring of Victoria Coleman.
The department which employs the team that includes DannyH (WMF) is clearly a technology unit, i.e. as I understand it, tasked with developing software. It is therefore not responsible for making policy on behalf of the WMF, and certainly not responsible for deciding what will be done about responsible requests from the community for urgently required software. In their careful absence of more detailed job descriptions, we would be right in assuming their job is to develop those needed solutions, not constantly question the community's consensus reached by a far larger group of intelligent (and possibly more qualified) people.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, the answer is likely that it is in a volunteer capacity, though while I get the legal distinction, I don't really see much distinction here when it comes to implementing a change that the WMF has been opposed to for a while. As I said to Kaldari and Horn, I do see the WMF as having a role here, and I am not as skeptical of them as you are (with my standard disclaimer that I have been involved not nearly as long). At the same time, I do think that it would be much easier if we were only dealing with one team at the WMF and not someone who is on their payroll acting as a volunteer from a different team. It sows confusion as to who we are actually talking to. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A small correction for Kudpung: Neil made the distinction in that comment between the Technology department and the Product department; Community Tech is a Product team, and Product Managers like me are responsible for prioritizing and planning software development. The distinction between Product and Technology means something to us and other people who work in the field, but it totally makes sense that it wouldn't matter much to anyone else. (Just to make things more difficult for everyone, the organization recently changed the name of the Product department to "Audiences", so that's what you see on the Staff and contractors page.)

For Sadads' contributions to the discussion: sorry about the confusion. He's not on our team; he makes his own decisions as a volunteer. :) DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to put you in the picture, Tony, and to help you understand why I have little confidence in the Foundation, the WMF allocated funds to set up its own semi-autonomous entity, the Wiki Education Foundation, headed by Frank Schulenberg, following the changes to his WMF global education program in the aftermath of the disasterous 2011 IEP. The Education Program continues but with a small and completely different staff.

I'm telling you all this because of the huge impact it had for ACTRIAL which we thought would certainly get the go ahead after this. But it didn't. There were some good people involved in the clean up, many of whom have now moved on. We were helped enormously by Moonriddengirl who was the Wikipedia top expert on COPYVIO. She joined the WMF in 2011 and she now occupies a very senior position. By the very nature of her job she's one of the few friends I have left in the Foundation, taking over from Philippe, also a friend, who left for personal reasons.

If you have 20 minutes to spare, make yourself a mug of tea, find a comfy chair and spend 20 minutes reading this: Wikipedia talk:India Education Program/Archive 1. Then you'll understand that when I say 'fiasco', I'm putting it mildly. The sad thing is that it could all have been avoided if Schulenberg had listened to me. It was more than just the chaotic teaching programme, there was corruption happening with the funds that the Foundation refused to believe was possible when I told them about it. Nothing was done until I got the ears of Erik Möller and Sue Gardner, but it was too late. Then the clean up began. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Mistaken identity?

Hi, I think you may have made a mistake with this edit or at least the edit summary. If I'm indeed a "CU confirmed sock" then no one has told me! :) ElKevbo (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I explained this on your talk, but the user you had reverted was a CU confirmed sock. I reverted to the edits before he started. Since you simply reverted one of your edits, my revert shouldn't have actually undone anything you did. Should have been more precise! Sorry for the confusion :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Climeon Page

Hello Tony I am not quite sure, what I can do to improve I am also unclear where the discussion is whether or not to delete the page. Any response would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDavis2017 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi HDavis2017, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climeon and contribute there. As I said in the nominating statement, the subject of the article does not pass our standards for notability of companies. The coverage is mainly PR or blogs. Also, as a note, if you are paid by this company in any way, including as a client or an employee, Wikipedia's terms of use require that you disclose your employeer and affiliation (see WP:PAID). Additionally, if there is any non-paid conflict of interest we discourage you from editing (see WP:COI) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! I was not paid , but a person that works there is a friend of a friend and said the page would be better if it was written in English. Regardless of the outcome thanks again for the reply, way to keep Wikipedia going. HDavis2017 (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem HDavis2017. If you are interested in continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, we would greatly appreciate it. New page creation is actually one of the harder tasks to do here. I'll make a post on your wall with some guidelines, but if you have any general areas of interest I can try to point you to some articles that could be improved in those areas. That's a good way to get to know Wikipedia's style and requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

considered for deletion - Godi Financial

Hello Tony, Hope you are doing well & thanks for your valuable feedback for "Godi Financial", which is my first article :). By the way, I read wiki's guidelines which you have sent me. But honestly, I still don't understand why it has been Nominate for deletion. It will be really helpful for me, if you rectify the words or sentences which you think is not appropriate in the Article Godi Financial. As recommended I have changed my User Name also. Thank You. Waiting for your earliest reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prajit Roy (talk • contribs) 06:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi PrajitRoy, I have nominated the page for deletion because it has received no sustained, substantial, independent coverage in reliable sources. This is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, do you have a connection to the subject and have you been paid in anyway to write the article? If you have, you should read WP:PAID and declare an employer per our teens of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for the information. I have removed all the advertisement links from that page. Please check once and do let me confirm. Thanks. Prajit Roy (talk • contribs)

Prajit Roy, sorry for the delay. I had meant to get back to this later today. The concern with the article is not only that it appears to have been created in an attempt to promote, but that it doesn't meet our notability guidelines for companies. There is not coverage of it in independent reliable sources, which we require. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks again for your valuable info. Requesting you to check the page now and confirm. I have got only a source link from a reliable site. Others I removed. The source link which I have given now, it's also present in other FX business page. And that page have only 1 reliable source link which is from FCA. Please take a look. Thanks again. Prajit Roy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Prajit Roy, the language still reads promotional and the sources provided are not enough to establish that it is notable, simply that it exists. There are only a few of us that regularly look at newly created pages so other businesses slip through sometimes. What is under discussion at the current time is whether or not this business meets our standards, not whether others do. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Article deletion

Hi there! Could you please explain it to me why the article I wrote makes you worry? It isn't promotional, it containg reliable links. I just can't see the problem.Ntarsh (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ntarsh, there are two issues with it: first, it doesn't explain why the article would be found in a general purpose encyclopedia (significance). Bbb23 deleted it for the same reason earlier today. The second reason is that the article has been deleted in the past via a deletion discussion. I can't see if the article is substantially the same as that content, but I noted this for the reviewing administrator to review. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer! It was deleted because of the lack of significance but I have specifically pointed out that the company I was talking about is one of the oldest in its sphere (or least I don't understand the notion "significant" itself). As for the second reason, I've read that discussion while browsing on the article's TalkPage and noticed that all the remarks there referred to the sources, so I did my best to pick the sources I chose for my article as reliable as I could only find. Ntarsh (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ntarsh, significance is a term that is tough to define, but the description I have heard that I like best is that it means would by hearing the description of this company presented in the article the average person on the street think it could possibly be in a general purpose encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore, another administrator, has reviewed this article and agreed with my concerns and deleted the article. He would be your best point of contact if you have other questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The article was not substantially different from the deleted version previously. Additionally, as TonyBalloni stated above, the subject of the article does not meet our notability criteria. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Thomas W. Wilson

Perhaps you already know much of this; my apologies if I'm repeating what you already know, but I want my train of thought to be clear, without you needing to fill in the gaps in my thought process.

The userpage isn't the right place to put such a draft, but it's not particularly harmful, just not a good idea, so if you think something ought to be done with it immediately, please just move it to draftspace. Even if Plaza Ventures gets deleted at AFD, there's no fundamental necessity that the draft/userpage be deleted; one could plausibly argue that it's being retained until more sourcing be found, for example. Therefore, I'd suggest either (1) you move it to Draft:Plaza Ventures or something of the sort, or (2) send the draft to MFD. If you move it, let me know and I'll delete the redirect; normally this isn't a good idea because it creates linkrot, but I think it's a good G6 candidate because one's main userpage shouldn't redirect to a page in another namespace, unless it's the same person's talk page or something like that. If you move it to draftspace, it would seem reasonable to me to tag it with the AFC template (so it will get G13 speedied in six months), but that's up to you. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend, makes sense and no worries about over explaining: MfD/user space CSD isn't really my thing because I view it in general as not particularly harmful like you pointed out. What I'll likely do is move it to draft and if the AfD ends up as delete add the AfC template. I think it would be a waste of an AfC reviewers time to review it while it was at AfD. I have page mover so I can suppress the redirect. Thanks for the explanation. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Mistake by me: "send the userpage to MFD" is what I meant. Also, don't submit the draft; just tag it with {{subst:AFC submission/draftnew}}, which will transclude {{AFC submission}}; it won't put it in the queues to get reviewed, but it will start the G13 timer. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your explanation. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	for leading me to HotCat! The garmine (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, The garmine. Its a really wonderful tool :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It really is! The garmine ^(talk) 12:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Cheurfa Tizi Tegyar

Hello. Speedy delete, please. Tank you. --Allforrous 16:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Allforrous, no reason to speedy delete. It just needs sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL tasks

FYI. Use or abuse, whatever. Now that Scottywong is back lending a hand I can take a back seat. I'd be happy to draft the texts of instructions/templates or rewrite the text of the Wizard. I feel I ought to be doing something, but I don't want to keep blowing my horn... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, that language is some of the best I've seen describing ACTRIAL. Tomorrow is a relatively busy day for me so I probably won't have much time to review specifics during the day Eastern time, but will be around enough to read on-wiki or via email. In terms of tasks, I'm literally the last person you want doing the tech parts, but I am decent enough at the communication and human facing elements of things. I'm more than happy to help coordinate tasks between the volunteer workgroup and the WMF if you want to take more of a backseat like you had intended with your earlier retirement, but the call is yours since this has been your brainchild for the last six years. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Not my brainchild exclusively. Scottywong, The Blade of the Northern Lights and I did it together, with a lot of input from others of course. I've just not stopped blowing horns about it ever since, and trying to keep NPP from disintegrating altogether. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I've been having another crack at rewriting some of the Wizard. OMG, the language is more complex than the manuals I used when I learned to fly airplanes! Looks to me like it was all written by someone studying for a bar exam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, when I'm free later tonight, I might have a look over it. I'm halfway decent at turning stuff written by people with a scientific background into human-readable text. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Funding

Hi,

Thanks for the response at WP:ACTRIAL.

I've just read the five weeks bit at WT:NPPAFC and I'm a bit confused, surely editing the blacklist requires no WMF funding: am I misinterpreting something?

Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DrStrauss, the WMF has agreed to implement this as a research trial. They primarily agreed to it for the purpose of statistics gathering from what I can tell. Kudpung and I were prepared to go to an RfC to get the community's endorsement for implementing ACTRIAL without the participation of the WMF, but then the WMF came on board before we launched that. This made an RfC unnecessary, but it also means that while this is a community driven effort, we are working with the WMF and taking some of their concerns in mind while launching.

As to Kudpung's earlier question re: the contingency plan for the funding, my contingency plan if this gets delayed too much would be to seek community endorsement for flipping the switch via the blacklist without WMF support. I think we are a long way from that at this point, but it is still an option if the current effort falls apart because of funding. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)