Jump to content

User talk:Kudpung

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This editor An alternative to "wrote" in the "This editor wrote..." description "ACTRIAL wrap-up" which appeared in the Signpost  on 29 March 2018.
This editor An alternative to "wrote" in the "This editor wrote..." description "Death knell sounding for The Signpost?" which appeared in the Signpost  on 29 March 2018.
This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lbc99 (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 15 April 2018 (→‎promotional language: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please sign your message.

Archives
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online



After yet another WP:NOTFORUM post at the above talk, which I reverted, I reported Fiorgioba to AIV. My report was removed unactioned in this diff. Please block this clown for NOTHERE. His contributions consist completely of him railing on unsourced about the evils of corporal punishment (equating it to sexual assault in one instance), same in my talk, and inserting unsourced content slightly about a recent incident but more about his POV in the associated article. The last removed post was him claiming myself and another editor were covering up the recent non event in the employ of the school. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, John but I'm wary of blocking right now. I'm sure the AIV was the riight way to go and let an admin deal with it who is not connected with schools. I'm sure I dream of horses inadvertently deleted that entry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon: I'm not entirely sure you could get blocked for WP:NOTAFORUM violations in and of itself, since it's something we can all violate quite accidentally, particularly if you're new. Not that it can't ever be seen as an aggravating factor.
There are other noticeboards that might be more appropriate for this sort of situation. WP:AN3 for edit wars and 3RR violations, and WP:RSN and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for opinions on reliable sources and NPOV, respectively. AIV is more for cases of obvious vandalism, not for situations of "This person may or may not be acting in good faith, but is incompetent regardless".  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

great work / agree

Hi, I noticed all of the hard work you put into Jean Elleinstein and I wanted to say well done. I also wanted to say I agree with you 100% that machine translations should NOT be allowed to be posted onto article space. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DrVogel. There may be a RfC soon about making some changes. Any suggestions? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a mess

Hi Kudpung. Could you help undo a tangled mess created by Senti keta? They've moved their user page and user talk page into the article space, and replaced the content with copyvio material. My most immediate concern is that their former user talk page and all its history of notices will be lost if it's G12'd. Thanks... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Drm310:-- Done.Talkpage restored to proper location and, all deletable pages are tagged.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 17:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, checking his contribution history, a stern warning or a CIR block would do him and the project some good.It's highly unlikely that he is turning productive anytime soon.~ Winged BladesGodric 17:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for that. I warned him about using page moves from the userspace to the mainspace. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at

Decided not to reply in the comments in the event it goes overboard. I just want to understand what your point is for pointing out my lack of editing on Wikipedia, even while I haven't touched the Signpost in around a year itself. GamerPro64 23:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64, like I already took the precaution of saying lest I be misunderstood, it was no reflection on your activity. It was precisely just to highlight one of the possible reasons for the perceived lack of interest in people wanting to be part of the editing team. FWIW, half the editorial team in the table have actually completely retired from Wikipedia within the last 6 - 12n months, and the E-in-C is AWOL and not responding to messages and mail, although this may possibly be a health related issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its possible that's the case. I left the Slack group months ago due to lack of activity. Maybe with new leadership I'd be back. Though maybe not for ArbCom. Arbcom really got dry for the longest time. I understand now. GamerPro64 23:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand that, GamerPro64 - we are all volunteers and we all do what we can when we can, but naturally motivation is a prime consideration, unfortunately, lack of it has a knock-on effect. I don't always feel motivated myself when I see some aspect or another of Wikipedia is almost in a state or disrepair. Fortunately I persevered for 6 years for ACTRIAL though - which also required getting a new team together. I doubt whether I would want to be on the new editorial team, but if I can help get the thing back on the road it would be a step in the right direction.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hi Kudpung, not sure if we have interacted before, if not, nice to finally talk with you. I saw your request for discussion about the Signpost on village proposals. I don't think it's feasible to have the same heavy-hitting articles in every issue -- but something I have been thinking about recently is just a small, frequent series of pieces by editors of all descriptions on how they are contributing and in what area.

We have so many different types of editors it would be fascinating and, I think help the community to understand each other a bit more (which we are lacking at the moment) to hear about how how different editors work - from a WikiGnome goes about his time, as to an anti-vandal type user, someone in a topic or thematic area, to a reviewer, etc. etc. Such pieces could be fairly short, and cover things such as what the editors do, how they work WP into their real lives, how they organise their time here, how they have dealt with adversity, how they build a community around them, etc. These could be both written by the editor and submitted, or in an interview format like the old WikiProject reports. I'd be happy to help out or play a role in this, too.

What do you think? In addition, plan to submit an article in a month or two about integration of WikiData in Anatomy articles, although this is not yet up to scratch.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT), do go ahead and make your submission. There will also be articles in the next Signpost issue that will discuss possible ways of streamlining the periodical. User comments will of course be most welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Use it Lose It" for NPP

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in awe you would have made a point I would have made. Thank-you for the comment. There is a discussion on SoWhy talk that suggests the log is for RfAs. Not sure how that would help without knowing how many successful CSDs someone had (ie their CSD log). Based only on the one decline log we'd vote DGG down in a RfA. Legacypac (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you process as many CSDs as admins like DGG and I do, an occasional slight mistake in 1,000 is inevitable. SoWhy is a lawyer, and a German lawyer. I lived and studied in Germany for nearly 20 years - they have their own proverb about their rigidity: "German graveyards are full of car drivers who were in the right". He's been the subject of discussion several times about his unbending adhesion to the strict letter of the rules. IAR is a construct he doesn't appear to understand. That said, he's usually a pretty damn good admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perrott Hill School

Hi there

We are trying to create an article for a local Prep School here in the UK. Can you please help us with this? We have added the content we wish to add, but I understand it will need working on to be independent and impartial

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WES217K (talkcontribs) 12:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we do not accept articles about primary schools or for-profit schools at this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Al Barghouti article

Hello,

Thanks for leaving a small message on my talk page. I have tried to put on some references but unfortunately, I'm rather new to adding reference links and creating new articles, I'm not sure why adding the website links under "references" isn't working (I hope you can help me with this).

I am very, very sorry!

SarahTHunter (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't want to G11 it yourself, Kudpung? Was that to allow exra eyes on it? Hope all's well. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 12:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I often do this, Serial Number 54129. It's one of my ways of seeing how long it takes for an article to be tagged, and to check on the performance of the reviewers - if they get it wrong, I can jump in with some advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense—and with a happy ending too! Many thanks, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 13:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you hesitated on deleting this and prodded first. I only refrained from speedy-tagging it because I saw you already decided for PROD. Later when I checked it back, I saw you reconsidered and speedied it. That article was epitome of sophisticated corporate spam. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who did? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 14:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly Article on what factors affect RfA

Hello Kudpung, I stumbled across this article written by Nima Kordzadeh (Idaho State University) and Christopher Kreider (Georgia Institute of Technology) about the factors affecting RfAs: "In this study, we examine the impact of content and social contributions as well as total contributions made by adminship candidates on the community's overall decision as to whether to promote the candidate to administrator. We also assess the influence of clarity of contribution on RfA success." Though you might be interested. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Iazyges. It doesn't really tell us what we don't already know without the research paper. Which, BTW, seems to be more of a synthesis of their sources than much actual original research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Ironically, great for Wikipedia, poor for their D.phil  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 16:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baskin (film)

Hi Kudpung, this guy, 110.159.186.144, seems to be continually reverting, to removed a The editor prior to me arriving, was placing a {{plot}} tag when the IP turned up and used up User:Darkknight2149 3RR's. and has now on his way to using up mine. Can you please take a look. scope_creep (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: @Scope creep: The user's nonsensical film-reference edit summaries have all but confirmed what I already suspected from the geolocation and their random unexplained revert. Their M.O. fits that of the Malaysian sock puppeteer that tends to stalk me with vandalism on articles that I edit. DarkKnight2149 16:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take it to WP:SPI and get the IP checked. Even if its not, their are likely to get blocked, with 5 pieces of vandalism, which is well past the threshold for disruptive editing. The edit summaries I thought were quite funny. scope_creep (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same change on [1] Thank-you for moving on these fixes. Legacypac (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection of University of Notre Dame?

I'm curious why you fully protected University of Notre Dame where one editor has been edit warring instead of blocking that editor or letting the Talk page discussion play out since the disruptive behavior seems to have stopped. ElKevbo (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, Because the rampant disruptive editor is using both their IP and named account. The named Account would not be prevented by a semi protection, and there are not sufficient grounds to block the main account - well not this time. The fp is only for 3 days and if it starts again I'll sp for a year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ElKevbo: update - the user has now been indeffed. The page protection will expire. Please check for new accounts editing in the same style and let us know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm....

confused face icon Just curious...how many of the oppose editors participate in NPP and/or AfC? Maybe we should make that a requirement for all who oppose. ^_^ Atsme📞📧 21:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them do - I think I've given three examples of blatant and obvious speedies, supplying the full text of each (which wasn't much) and asking for assistance. Not a word. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of them, Atsme, especially the WiR crowd many of whom have more or less admitted that they don't actually fully understand what Wikipedia/Wikimedia is all about although they are paid to promote it. There are a couple of votes whose reasoning seems to defy all logic, not to mention one who mainly confines his unorthodox comments to RfA.
Although over 200 people have now commented, some users are conspicuous by their absence. It's interesting to note that the most recent support vote is from RL0919. He closed the original RfC 7 years ago. Although there was a clear majority consensus, reading it all and weighing it up cannot have been an easy task. I guess at least a full day's work. The closing statement is also one of the best I have ever seen on Wikipedia on any RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure all the oppose CSD logs are redlinks. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP election

I stumbled across the NPP coordinator page and now I'm pretty confused. How did the top candidate manage to get his entire existence wiped from wikipedia? Natureium (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natureium, the account was renamed around the time of the election. Try this user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. Natureium (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Natureium, there were valid concerns with harassment is the short answer. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this article for deletion, it was closed as delete, but the article wasn't deleted. What happened here? Natureium (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natureium, It was deleted, but it was restored today for some reason by Ritchie333. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was recreated by Ipigott - I just re-attached the old history to bring up some diffs in a discussion, as can be seen from the rationale in the logs. For the full context, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Astrid Medina Pereira. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I have not disobeyed any rules here. On the WiR talk page, there was considerable encouragement to have the article recreated by someone with a knowledge of Spanish. Despite a request I made, I was not able to see the text of the article which was deleted but I was informed it was of very poor quality. The text of the deleted Spanish version (or part thereof) was however made available on the WiR talk page. It was on this basis I created the article as I explained in my edit comment. Only now can I see that the article Astrid Medina Pereira (not Astrid Medina, the preferred usage in English reports) was deleted on the grounds that the coffee award was considered inadequate for notability. Given the additional details and sources I have now included in the article, I would venture to suggest that it was in fact sufficient as Medina received wide international press coverage at the time and has remained an exemplary figure in the world of coffee ever since. This is also the first time I have seen that Natureium was behind the deletion. If Natureium now believes that he should have been consulted before the article was recreated, I could request deletion. We could then open a formal discussion on whether there are grounds for recreating the article. Apart from a minor edit by Ritchie333, the only other editor to have participated in the new version of the article seems to be PamD. Please let me know how we should proceed.--Ipigott (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott. Marginal notability. WP:BLP1E (winning a cup). Sources are all niche websites with little more than short mentions and one newspaper, El Tiempo, which has no masthead. A plethora of sources all basically reporting the same thing does not add up to notability. 50/50 chance of surviving another AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want this to be "AfD round two", but Deutsche Welle and Bloomberg are not "niche websites"! Anyway, I think everyone has assumed good faith on everyone else, so I think the best thing to do is just carry on improving the article; the higher quality it is, the less likely it will be that somebody will complain about it. The obvious litmus test for me would be to create a DYK out of it ("... that Astrid Medina brews coffee at 1800m?"), then if it sits on the main page for 24 hours without complaint, there's your answer.
The other advice I would give is; Natureium - if you see an unsourced biography, do a search for copyvio first (I assume this was done here), then do quick search for searches (a Google search for "Astrid Medina coffee" would have done it), and if you've got something, trim it to a stub. If you really don't think anyone can take it any further, PROD or AfD it. Kudpung, when nominating something for AfD, consider notifying all the major contributors (you can get this from "View History" and clicking on "Revision History Statistics"); I didn't know about the AfD until it was too late (and, by extension, neither did Women in Red, who could have clubbed together and fixed the article as they have now done). On a semi-related note, Women in Red has been a very successful project with plenty of carmarderie and mutual respect, and I'd hate for it to get bogged down with the same problems that befell the Gender Gap Task Force, with people setting up entrenched camps either side of a debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ritchie333. I do not canvas for participants when I nominate for AfD. I am a signed up member of WP:Women in Red and have created a couple of new bios about women. I am not suggesting it should undergo a further AfD, I'm merely citing my prognosis as a barometer, and in case it crosses anyone's mind to think so, I am not deletionist . Ipigott, I did not see any sources from Deutsche Welle or Bloomberg and unless they offer new information on the subject, strictly speaking it's still BLP1E. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung: I had originally included a source from Bloomberg [2] but as it could not be read by non-subscribers, I substituted this which can be read in full. Ritchie333: In future I will avoid calls for "rescuing" articles which have been deleted. I have always tried to stick to the rules and have now seen that there was a clear case for this article's deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PERM comment

Would you consider refactoring this comment slightly? In particular, the "that you intend to use it" bit is a bit odd given that the NPR right requires no such obligation. Saying "that you might use it" might be ok, but seriously, I just got finished telling the guy that the user right requires 'no obligation' to review at the new pages feed if they don't want to (in bold no less). The NPR standard invite also contains this language, so if you objected to it, perhaps you should have done so back when the discussion about the contents of the invite template was had (that particular template was also sent out to everyone in the newsletter at one point, recommending that other reviewers use it). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 14:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of which obtained a consensus. It was a unilateral initiative on your part. Even everything I do around here gets a consensus first, although you might not realise it. We do not want hundreds of hat collectors or inactive patrollers, these mistakes have been made with other user rights in the past, Pending Changes reviewer was a prime example where someone had the brilliant idea of according the right by a bot. We now have literally thousands (over 6,000) of them among whom about 200 have ever been active. I suggest that if you are going to cause PERM to bombarded with requests requiring admin action on this scale, that you do some preliminary due diligence yourself. You'll know what the work entails then. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you say this was 'unilateral on my part' but there were multiple people that spoke about the template positively, you yourself were free to comment on it at the time and obviously declined, and the newsletter was peer-reviewed by TonyBallioni before he sent it out. What do you want me to do? Start an RfC on whether the template wording is correct? There has been no indication from anyone that the wording "reviewing is optional after being granted NPR" is incorrect, and the NPR criteria page makes no such requirement. Perhaps you should start an RfC and try to get some consensus for revoking the user-right for people that don't use it, as it doesn't appear to be a requirement at present. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 14:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try to be practical minded here. There is no requirement whatsoever that users who request the right have plans to review, only that they meet the requirement. In any case I've had a lot of comments from some of these AfC reviewers that following my invitation they would be keen to help out at at NPR anyway, even though I told them they didn't have to. The real point of this whole initiative has been to get the AfC reviewers the NPR user right, so that we can make the NPR right a requirement for AfC in the future (something you yourself have supported). Given this, AfC reviewing is in and of itself a reason to request the NPR right, which is why I invited these people in the first place. AfC won't accept the NPR right as a requirement unless nearly all the AfC reviewers have the right already, and now you are indicating in your comments that AfC reviewing isn't a reason to request the right? How does that make sense? The situation is circular and you have to start somewhere. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 14:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPP and AfC may merge, but the way to do that is to get consensus for a plan/joint project, not by trying to jam through a lot of people from one group to another. I'm (clearly) happy to review anybody who wants it, but AfC reviewing is in and of itself a reason to request the NPR right isn't right. Good history at AfC may be proof that someone knows what is required, but it's not the same thing: they should want to do NPP work, otherwise it's just a dusty hat. The community specifically chose to restrict the ability to patrol new pages, it should not be given out to further some other means. ~ Amory (utc) 14:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think encouraging people at AfC to apply for the NPR permission is fine. I also think that we should make sure that the people who are being asked to consider applying don't already have it and are active. I think it can be discouraging for people to apply and get rejected, but I also don't think we should lower our standards at the PERM page for them. It's a delicate balance. Also going off of what Amory said, while I do support merging the AFCH checklist with the NPR right, it is also important to note that many of the people who are most active in AfC currently do not support that goal, and trying to get everyone to apply for NPR as a way of merging it is likely going to step on toes. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Amorymeltzer: From the NPP-AfC page discussions, it is clear that this has been a sticking point for joining the projects (that many AfC reviewers wouldn't have the rights), and so it is a reason, and will help with the process, and do little harm. I am also very confused by your comment above in light of User_talk:Nizil_Shah#Interested_in_becoming_a_new_page_patroller? and User_talk:Pbsouthwood#Interested_in_becoming_a_new_page_patroller?. Given those respective users clearly stating that their primary/only reason for applying was because we asked. You gave them the right because they were qualified for it, but you likely gave out two dusty hats. Thank you. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read both as saying they'd like to help out, but weren't able in the past/might not able to be super active; that's different from saying they won't use it. In hindsight, Nizil wasn't a particularly ringing commitment, but Pbsouthwood made an affirmative statement saying they would use it. At any rate, I'm more flexible and willing to go out on a limb for more experienced users (eg, autoreviewed, years editing) as there is a much lower risk of missteps or downsides. ~ Amory (utc) 15:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am being practical. I created the NPR right - remember? And I also introdued the semi-official criteria for getting on the AfC reviewer list. And after 7 years of toil and meetings in RL with the people who matter, and with Tony's enormous help and encouragement in the latter stages, I finally got ACTRIAL through. I am most certainly an advocate of raising AfC standards to those of NPP, and have absolutely no intention of backtracking on my challenege to achieve that - I'm not going to risk strewing logs across my own road, but the users need to meet those standards. It's not done by handing out user rights like candy to kids in a schoolyard. I don't disaprove of these good initiatives for a moment - indeed I encourage them, but they need to be more carefully crafted and discussed as a team before they are put into action. I'll be processing any PERM requests I come across on my watch and applying the same criteria I have always used. Not everything needs a full blown RfC, but more aforethought as a group.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire issue is that you needed to be very much more selective in the criteria you used for your list. xaosflux and I worked together for hours to get the grandfathering list made for NPR and even then in hindsight there were some backfires - not too many though, but the proof is that some of them never used it but got uppity when we realised our errors and took the right away again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The grandfathering list and the invitations are not the same thing. The same thing would be If I were an admin and just gave out the rights to all of them (which wouldn't be appropriate). I invited them to apply. I'm not implying that anyone who does not meet the NPR granting conditions be given the right or that it be "given out like candy" or that it be loosened to the level of the least qualified AfC reviewers, or anything like that. I also know exactly what your track record is with NPP AfC and ACTRIAL is, I have sung your praises many a time, but your crusade against hat collectors at NPR is disruptive. Surely some of the users I invited today will show up to collect a hat, but others will become productive new page patrollers. I'll take a few dusty hats with few productive patrollers any day (and given my previous experience with invitations, it is unavoidable in any case). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right on one thing: I most definitely do have a crusade against pure hat collectors. PERM is not your bailiwick until you perhaps become an admin yourself, but if you had processed the literally hundreds of requests I have (perhaps over the years even more than any other admin), you would be left in no doubt whatsover why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you are right, and I agree that sometimes you can see it in the request wording that they don't intend to help out, but are only there to collect a hat. It isn't really possible to get any indication of that when you invite people though. I invited hundreds of people from the top 1000 wikipedians by edit count list, and many of them applied, but only a few have become prolific editors (and of those who were granted, more of them reviewed nothing than became prolific reviewers). Is this a failure or a success in your mind? There are a lot of dusty hats in my invitee list, but there are also many thousands of reviewed articles, and by spreading the net wide I also stumbled across amazing volunteers such as Cwmhiraeth, Babymissfortune and Elmidae, who may not have joined the project at all had they not been invited. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely not suggesting it is a failure, but a bit more due dilligence in creating the list would relieve the admins of even more work. Which would ultimately result in fewer applications being rejected - which is not nice for anyone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the NPR flag as a requirement for AfC work. If someone does not qualify for NPR they have no business sending pages to mainspace with the AfC endorsement. None of the AfC invitees are hat collectors because if they were worried about the hat they would have applied for it already. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But some of them on your list are not even suitable for reviewing AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But they are doing AfCs - so when we have nearly all AfC people with the flag and we change the AfC requirement to include NPR flag we cut out the least qualified AfC reviewers. Also raising the AfC standard to include a PERM may help blunt the criticisms that a single AfC reviewer is a barrier to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep up the good work, both of you, but don't be in too much of a rush. I know it only took one bloke 6 days to create heaven and earth, but it took us 6 years to get ACTRIAL... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No chance you'll be in New Zealand any time soon? I've got a bottle of Crémant d'Alsace in the fridge for when the RfC finishes. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but Crémant de Die is my preferece, but probably only because its only about 100km from my house in France. I've got a bottle of Châteauneuf waiting for the RfC to end. Wine is a very rare and expensive commodity here in Thailand. Even Château Tetrapac costs about $20. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a general thought, but as far as activity level goes, we don't necessarily want brand new NPP reviewers to jump in both feet forward and knock out 50 CSD noms in a day. I've had at least one new reviewer who I interact with regularly on IRC review about ten pages, and then we sat down together in a private chat and went through every single one, where they missed an orphan tag, where they missed the proper stub cat, etc, and then they reviewed about ten more and we did it again. To my mind, that is exactly the kind of cautious approach that is appropriate, and helps us to grow new reviewers into seasoned and accurate ones, even if it isn't the most effective at clearing the backlog in the short term. Also, NPP can be draining. I did it non stop for about three weeks after ACTRIAL and a few days ago I just stopped almost entirely because I needed something more fulfilling to do to refresh myself for a little while. AfC can be the same way. I think that's totally appropriate, and important for avoiding burnout. Just rambling mostly, but I think it's important to keep in mind. GMGtalk 16:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, Kudpung, for the assistance on my talk page--could've lived with it but happy not to have to. Thank you, I appreciate your looking out. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome 😋 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising

I was following the discussion over Meta and was surprised to hear your comment that:--The very reason we did not avail of that wishlist in 2017 was that at one stage you clearly told us that what we require is not within the remit of your department!.That seems to be seriously callous on Danny's part, given that every-time of late, any of our volunteers has raised any query as to the development of the NPP-suite, he has been steadily pointing to the next XMas Wishlist.(See the last thread at Danny's t/p for an example!)

At any case, I trawled the intersections of you and Danny but failed to dig the diff out. I would be genuinely interested to read the accompanying conversation and the context of the comment:)

Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 06:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been something he said to me during a video conference. Anyway, I don't make these things up. What Horn totally fails (or refuses) to grasp is that Page Curation is big stuff - far more important than any long-term pie-in-the-sky goals for getting AI do do everything. It's a much higher priority than any of the wishlist reguests that have been made since they began he scheme. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A direct ping

I thought about pinging you, for your thoughts. Instead, I will directly ask you to share some insight regarding my last edit. Here or there makes little difference to me, but knowing if you think I'm spot on or a mile off does. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Spot on. I will never understand why people lauch major RfCs on the VP. It's frankly ridiculous. Not to mention trying to edit among all the other threads on the same page. It should obviously have been created at WT:Portal and notified on the VP and CENT. Probably too late to move it now though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. To follow, while it's not our current practice, would you think it problematic, or wrong if an RfC was published as a stand alone project page, similar to this model, and subsequently transcluded at multiple locations where relevant? That is to ask, why place the page at one location (Eeny, meeny, miny, moe) and advertise it at others when the full content can render at multiple locations in real time (edit links and all)?
Not a good idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP and import

Hi Kudpung, wanted to run something by you. I had a WP:RFPI request (The Swiss Commission for UNESCO) for transwiki of this page to the "right" language (English). Once I got it over, I realized that I really didn't like the looks of this article, but it looks like imported pages are exempt from "new page" processing - and I don't think that is in itself a bad thing; however it meant we now had an article that needed a lot of work. I poured a pile of clean up tags and a prod on it. Outside of just refusing the import (which on reconsideration I think I would have put it in Draftsapce), do you have any other suggestions for what the next best step would be? <humor>Please don't tell me I better get to researching and sourcing it!</humor> Thanks for your time, — xaosflux Talk 01:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't tell you anythig of the kind Xao! I am actually firmly against reviewers either at NPP or AfC being expected to do general clean up. It's up to the community and/or the WMF to provide better instructions to new users before they even start to plant stuff in mainspace. My take on non-English pages is that they should be removed from mainspace immediately, including any machine translations which some users think is a clever solution. The only solution (unless a machine translation demonstrate that the article is a candidate for CSD anyway) is to move them to draft.
One other problem with imports and non-E pages is that even I as a native speaker of German and French find it very difficult to do a clean up of a poor machine translation if I don't have the source text in front of me - in fact I can type translations in real time much faster than trying to decode a rough machine effort. Machine translations can be exasperatingly inaccurate, even implying the oppsite in English - which is typical of the differences in English and German syntax. In some languages, particularly Thai, Google just produces gobbeldygook.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS, the page at WP:IMP really needs to be updated to reflect these issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This one is unusual, as far as I can tell it was created original in English, but on dewiki instead of here; the original creation looks to be by a "role account" of the subject too. I'm just going to move it to Draft now, and let the dewiki user know they need to fix it up and then they can move it themselves. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 02:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Best solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

xlate rfc

Xao! Coud you check this out please before I send it live.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will be about 12 hrs - but will get back to you later today. — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually had a little more time, something got cancelled. I think it looks fine overall. I think the only part that is going to be a problem is: As per current practice, if the non-English page is not translated within two weeks, it will be listed for deletion at MfD. Hard time limits are likely to get opposition, and "will be" is very strong. I suggest weakening that part to "not edited within two weeks" as opposed to being complete within 2 weeks, and "may be listed" instead of "will be". — xaosflux Talk 13:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also "ensure that the page is not indexed by Google" - not sure if this protection will survive if the page is also marked patrolled - and pretty sure it won't survive aging out, maybe just say "delay indexing by Google"? — xaosflux Talk 13:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More notes, I know we were talking about the "import" process previously, just wanted to make it clear we don't import pages in non-english to articles at all, if they are not in english we make them make the translation first then we merge the history, or alternatively we import it to a sandbox or draftspace. That last part could hit on any changes made about non-english in draft - if this passes let me know and we can make sure to add any tags etc to non-englih drafts imported to drafts in the future. Thanks! — xaosflux Talk 13:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking it out, Xao. The issues with the time limit and deletion are not new proposals, this is what is done anyway. Perhaps I should cut it out to avoid it being redebated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is already practice - leave it out, opening the door to debate may bog down everything else! — xaosflux Talk 14:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion maybe?

Hi Kudpung, came across this article; Financial Training Center Limited, would you say it qualifies for deletion or a stub tag added? Article says it's a training institution but it is using Infobox school for its infobox, not sure if this is the right one to use? Please let me know, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven (Editor), as it stands, in my interpretation it's an avert in so far as it contravenes WP:NOTYELLOW, I would PROD it first, but inclusionists would probably send to AfC. It's chances there are 50/50 depending who turns out to vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, how about this one, maybe stub? J B Law College - there are a lot of Indian school stubs. Just wanted to ask you something, because you've been editing on Wikipedia longer than me, was there a time when anyone could create an article and it wasn't reviewed? I guess new articles are reviewed before being published right? Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Steven (Editor), same again, and blatantly unsourced. Depending on how old it is, (I haven't checked) move it to draft using the Move to Draft tool (if you're allowed to use it), but if it's older, the creator may no longer be around. Not suggesting you should apply for for the user right right now, but I suggest if you are interested in these things you may wish to have a good read of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers and it's accompanying instructions at WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is from 2009, the second from 2016 (and account hasn't edited since then). PROD might be an idea Steven (Editor). --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is surely an autobiography. This actress is desperately trying to get herself on Wiki. One editor tagged it for CSD but it got declined as there seems to be no CSD criteria for this. There is also Draft:Elnaaz Norouzi which is written by someone else. My judgement says we should keep the draft for AfC and delete this COI article she created herself. What would you suggest in this case? Dial911 (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dial911, I can't look into this at the moment. Please ask for advice at WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined page as failing WP:ENT Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung,

Could I just ask what the promotional language I used for future reference - hopefully to improve the quality of any further contributions I make!

from Lbc99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbc99 (talkcontribs) 17:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

promotional language

Could you please highlight what the promotional language I used was so as to improve the quality of my future submissions - thanks!