User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug 2016

You suck kudpung!

Fartsalot56 is watching you! Beware! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.68.237 (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Hey Kudpung, I apologize for creating. My intention is simply to create a company page. How do companies have their own pages. I want to simply inform not to use it as a "soapbox".

Is there a way to create with out being inappropriate?

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilpstom (talk • contribs) 06:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi.Unfortunateky t is unlikeky to ever meet any of our notabiity criteria. Wikipedia is not a company listng site. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Confused about sources that are appropriate

Hello,

I would like further clarification on why you tagged my article. I thought IMDb (and to a lesser extent, Twitter), were legitimate sources. I can show you other sources on my topic-- Michael Matteo Rossi-- that are journalistic, if that helps. I am new to actually creating pages, so I'd like some assistance.

Thanks,

Dan

Dansiego (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dansiego. Unreliable sources (IMDB) and self-populated social media are strictly forbidden as indications of notabiity. Please see WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, and then check out the criteria at WP:NACTOR. For still more information, please follow all the links that are now on your talk page or ask at the Tea House. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Cannot upload an image

Hi Kudpung, I want to upload image of Govt. Islamia College Civil Lines, Lahore but it gives some error {{autotranslate|base=Abusefilter-warning-baduploads}}, what to do.

--Mamoo.8562 (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm realyy srry, I can't help. I don't work in the images department. Probaly the photo is the wrong kind of format or too big. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference.

Hello, you proposed to delete the page, you need references. This is my first biography here, and it is of my father. Can you guide me with the reference? Will official fb page do? or pictures of his written books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aun.qadri (talk • contribs) 11:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Stand1233 (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)== Hi ==

Hi there,

I am new to Wikipedia but a little bit confused about my pages being deleted. A 90 years old Cricket club with thousand of members over the years and page has been marked for speedy deletion? I may have made some editing mistake but outright deletion seems strange to me. Can you please help?

Note - no bad intent or spamming here mate .. these are genuine organisation so please consider before assuming the worst automatically. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stand1233 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Stand1233 (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Stand1233. We do not assume the worst, but onus is on article creators to ensure that they comply with our policies - that's the downside of being allowed to edit the encyclopedia without your edits first being queued for review as they would be on other wev sites. . The cricket club does not meet our notability guidelines, and you should not be writing about topics or people you are closely connected with. PLease follow the many links that are now ob your talk page. If you need help, p;ease ask at the Tea House. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I am following your guidelines and thanks for sharing the links to policies. Stand1233 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the help! Stand1233 (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Why delete my page?

Why delete my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyahu Shmuel (talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that page is blatantly promotional. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. If your company is truly notable for something, then someone else unconnected with it will write a newspaper article about it or make a TV documentary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC).

Remembrance (EP)

@Kudpung and Bbb23: Hey Kudpung (also looping BBb23 into the conversation). I came across this article in recent changes and noted it was nominated for and then speedily deleted. The editor has recreated it, and I think I would have too-- I really think it ought to stay this time. I note the artist does not have an article (though it's possible that they should), but the criterion notes that the speedy deletion is only appropriate when there isn't a claim to notability and there is no artist article, where both conditions must be true. At the time of nomination, there were many claims to notability at the time of nomination. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I JethroBT. Thanks for bringing this up. I have sent the article to AfD. Thank you for your concern. Perhaps you can take this opportunity to connect with your colleagus at the Foundation, especially Jonathan Morgan who has taken the initiative to pursue the urgent need of addressing the update to our NPP system and the lack after all these years of a proper landing page for new users. Let me know if you would like any background information, or the minutes of my recent Skype meeting with the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I just had a brief interview with him about the benefits of the old Moodbar Feedback Tool, as a matter of fact. Some of these tasks are being tracked at T137987, and I'll continue to contribute to these efforts where I can. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

Hey Kudpung, thanks for the note about new page patrolling. Have I been mis-tagging new articles? I try to carefully follow the WP:CSD and WP:NPP guidelines, and especially not use CSD excessively or soon after the pages are created. And I make an effort to write helpful, constructive notifications so I don't WP:BITE the page authors. Of course it's possible that I misunderstood something (or several things). In any case, I can focus my energy on a different area if I've been causing problems. Thanks. Pianoman320 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pianoman320, the best way woud be for you to review your tagginging again even if this would take time. That said, even users at the far less important AfC require significantly more experience before they are allowed to review new article submissions. It's a quirk of Wikipedia software that a user right was never created for NPP, but it's on the way. Thank you for your comprehension. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

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

sorry for distrubting

Hi, I'm very sorry for redoing the article. this is my first time using Wiki. very sorry for distrubting. please accept my appologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comcoil12 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing from Morad Chiri

Hello user, I see that you want to delete the page dj Morad Chiri my question is what is your reason for DJ Morad Chiri is real sources are really so I do not like you at all objections I would heben answer how we can solve this might you want to help me to solve this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alomo09 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. This page wil be deleted if it's subject fails to meet the cteria at WP:MUSICBIO. If you can fulfill those requirements, it will not be deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

m:2016 Strategy/Recommendations

See the 3rd paragraph, "reate different UI’s, features, and levels of support for different levels of engagement (EWP) to better overcome the steep learning curve" point 2. "Stage 1: First-time editor - limited capabilities (minor edits, contributions directly on requested items) with simple, easy-to-understand how-to tutorials" DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was unable unable to unravel the semantics of that missive; maybe I'm just getting old. I'm sure it's meant in good faith but it appears to have been written by a realtive newcomer with little experience - in fact, based its tone I first thought it was written by someone in the WMF. The majority of their edits appear to be to Jimbo's talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

DGG, It appears to all boil down to mw:Edit_Review_Improvements which of course is typical of the way the Foundation spends our money on reinventing the wheel and deploying a large team to do reasearch (more research) on aspects and issues of Wiikpedia that have already been clearly identified by the volunteer community as requiring attention. In other words, the WMF continues to treat us as idiots and refuses to listen to us. Worse, most of their research, once published and with pats on the back and salary raises all round, gets shelved and forgotten. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I saw this rather as an attempt to actually do something--that might fit in with your idea to direct new editors to Draft space DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

DGG, This appears to be part of a Foundation project now called mw:Edit Review Improvements which ostensibly is the extension of the talks I had in Esino, and now headed by a new staffer. However, it appears, (and I hope I'm wrong) to be yet a Foundation huddle that little understands Wikipedia from the aspect of the people who do the actual work. It excludes our hands-on empirical experience and wants to spend a long time doing all the research all over again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

→Σσς. (Sigma) 01:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Again. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of A.I.R Engineer

This is to inform you that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.I.R Engineer. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of Samuel Shephard

Hi Kudpung! I have completely forgotten the process of how to get a deletion reverted. could you please revert your deletion of Samuel Shephard? Or please point me the right direction as to how to contest this deletion. He is a recipient of the highest civil decoration/military "not in the face of the enemy" decoration in the UK (the George Cross), and is therefore notable as per WP:ANYBIO and WP:MILPEOPLE. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

PS, I shall happily expand it once it is restored. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPP

Hi Kudpung, on WT:RFA you mentioned "If we can get a user right established for NPP". Can you elaborate as to what sort of permissions are not available but needed? The (patrol) permission for marking an edit patrolled is already available to most editors. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux, 'User right' in this context means software controlled access to a feature of Wikipedia that requires significant experience and competency (such as for example, Sysop and Bureaucrat tools). For examples of minor rights rquiring special authority, see WP:PERM, and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants which, along with the Draft namespace was an initiative of mine, as was getting the Foundation to develop the Page Curation system. After 4 years of use we are now working on an upgrade to it based on user feedback anda recent meeting with wMF staff. Concomitant to this should be, finally, the requirement for a degree of competency to use it, bringing it in line with the established requirements for AfC, a far less important and less critical process than NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung I'm very familiar with almost everything at Special:ListGroupRights - are suggesting a new control to use an extension, or a new user group to grant permissions? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I am more famiiar than most (except perhaps for Bureaucrats) with Special:ListGroupRights . I thought I was being quite clear, especially if you had followed the links I provided above. The current discussions (ongoing since 2012 and revitalised at a recent meeting) are for the introduction of a software controlled user group, called something like 'New Page Reviewer' which will lock all non authorised users out of the use of WP:Page Curation. On the principle of user right groups that require a certain recommended threshold of experience (say, for example 90/500 plus valid experience), the right would be accorded by admin discretion at WP:PERM,but I don't think I need to explain here how this works. I don't think there has ever been any mention of creating a special group of users who would accord this right (at last not by me) - that's what we have PERM and admins for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There are other ways to mark patrolled that Page Curation so there will remain a way around it, just as there are multiple ways to evade AfC. But remind me briefly, how do we control AfC? How is this new one going to work? (generalities are sufficient--I'm deliberately only talking in generalities myself) DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am a bureaucrat. I just looked at the scripts. As far as mediawiki permissions go, using these scripts do not really appear to do anything restricted (it only "edits" pages), so I'm not seeing a good reason to have a "usergroup" created. As far as changing the sign up process - I would see this akin to the signup on WP:PERM for WP:AWB - should it need to be more tightly controlled (that is, if too many problematic editors are self-enrolling at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants). Note, anyone with enough technical insight could fork the afchelper script and remove the participant list checker (of course if they were make bad edits they could be blocked for disruption). This would be done by sysop-protecting the page and making admins update it. If you want that to happen, bring it up at the project talk. It appears that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, someone is already proposing changing the page protection level to extendedconfirmed. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generalities, David:

• NPP is a critical, essential process. It's the only firewall against unwanted content in he form of new pages.
• AfC is not a strictly necessary process - it's a compromise that allows non-registered users to create an article, or a review of articles that are created, or sent to, the Draft namespace.
• AfC requires users to have a 90/500 threshold plus appropriate experience to use the helper script. The helper script is a community development and its access is controlled by a community developed script. There is a work-around but with9ut the Helper Script AfC is practically impossible to do.
• NPP does not require the least demonstration of competency or knowledge of policies to operate the Page Curation dashboard.
• Access to the Page Curation dashboard can be controlled by the creation of a use group in exactly the same way as Reviewer, Rollbabker, Template Editor, are controlled.
• Work-around to Page Curation will be effectively prevented by deprecating the Special:New Pages list and making some of the tags in Twinkle only accessible to holders of te NPP right.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

xaosflux, I know you are a Bureaucrat - you appear to have ignored the fact that I supported your very recent bid for the post. You're probably not aware either that I'm an admin and I practically ran WP:PERM single-handed for nearly 2 years because at the time nobody else was interested. A result, again at my lobbying, MusicAnimal developed an excellent bot that helps to keep the wannabe admins away from 'clerking' the PERM pages. I mention this to help you understand the nuisance that uncontrolled new editors make of themselves at NPP. I think it is inappropriate here to be discussing the technicalities of introducing a user right for NPPers - and it's usually the way that RfCs get sidetracked intoe failure. Suffice it to say tat it is easily technically feasible, but would need to be implemented by a MediaWiki tech who has access to the MediaWiki software. Have you ever installed MediaWiki? It's open source and can be downloaded and used for all sots of purposes. I have it on my own server where I am currently developing a Wiki based website about Isan where I live. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

OK I think we are having a small miscommunication - I came to see if you had identified an area where editors would be more effective if they had additional user permissions (for example "delete"). As far as people having too much access, perhaps removing "patrol" from autoconfirmed, adding "patrollers" group like other projects have for "patrol" access - and adjusting the extension to look for that would help? Certainly an RfC would be the way to move that along. I've never done a complete mediawiki install, but do have a private mediawiki instance at my office. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, xaosflux, I think there is a problem of communication. Never for an instant was there mention of including deletion in this user right. Unbundling amin tools and impoving NPP are two very remotely related issues. You are probably confused by a statement I made recently somewhere else that eventually some patrollers could be granted deletion rights in some very special, isolated circumstances. But it was not in this discussion, and should not be taken out of context. It is part of a discussion that WereSpielChequers and I have been having for several years. That said, I was also unable to locate the discussion you mentioned at WT:AfC. DGG and I follow that page continuosly - indeed we have been responsible for the initiatives for several improvements to the AfC system although our ultimate goal is e logical stem to merge AfC with NPP which now has a 10,000 backlog and increasing at a rate of 30% per week - faster in fact than the patrollers can work. Now yu can appreciate that we need more, truly competent patrollers rather than reasons for telling us we don't. On a side note - I hope you will be as generous when I run for Bureaucrat :) At my age, it's all I have left to do. At nearly 70, I'm now too old for Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What a shameless hat-collector! I believe the section referred to is at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants#Something to look at.—Odysseus1479 06:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

xaosflux, Odysseus1479, That was a 2-post section and it was already 2 months ago. The main RfC was in March 2015 where the community voted overwhelmingly in favour of having the page fully protected hence requring an Edit Request for a non admin to add their name. The RfC was closed as unsccessfu and I'm surprised that no one queried the closure. That often happens with some RfC however when the participant fail to continue to follow an RfC they voted on.In view of recent probles, I will relaunch it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

1/because of some technical issues, I've been doing an number of AfC reviews manually, and it works perfectly well--if I keep the instructions open besides me; manual is actually faster. And, as you know, there are ways to bypass it altogether.

2/I find special:newpages an invaluable tool. It's the fastest way to quickly find routine articles that can be immediately OKd, ssuspicious articles, and especially to scan for types of articles that I am particularly able to review. We can I believe limit access to it, as we do some other special pages. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung:, related to all of the above, I've finally (sorry for the delay) replied on mediawiki in our discussion about NPP, and also left you a note at mw:User talk:Kudpung about notifications issues. See you over there. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Langlamet

Thanks for taking an interest in my latest article. I think it should be possible to establish this person's notability via reviewed performances etc. --Thoughtfortheday (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars I've been tagging CSDs since 2010 so your "review of my editing history" was clearly thorough. I put A3 on the page instead of G7 because it had been edited by people other than the author. This is also A3 [1]--Savonneux (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was thorough. You are not a 'regular'. You only have 431 mainspace edits - your monthly count is almost blank. Experience comes through practice. You won't even qualify to tag articles when the new rule comes out. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you had actually looked at contributions instead of statistics. In any case avail yourself of WP:ANI then.--Savonneux (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

All on the same team, guys. FYI I've restored the redirect at Chiyo Miyako, neither A3 nor G7 really applied, but you're both allowed to make minor mistakes like this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You deleted Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin identity card, as an expired {{prod}}. I missed notice of the {{prod}}, due to other dramah.

I request your assistance, specifically restoration. I know I started this article nine years ago, when our inclusion standards were a lot looser. So, after you restore it, it's very likely I will conclude it is not worth trying to bring it up to our current inclusion standards.

If that is the case, I will either cannibalize any valid references, and incorporate them into related articles, and redirect it there, or I will port it to a non-WMF wiki, with looser inclusion standards. If I don't think it contains anything worth keeping I'll apply a {{db-g7}} to it.

Please restore to userspace...

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done See; User:Geo Swan/Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin identity card. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

NPP test

I think you may have previously assurredme that new articles created by page moves appear in NPP. I have just tested it with several instances:

User:DGG/sandboxtest moved to Oddtest, Inc. from at 18:05, Aug 9. did not show up in either New page feed, or New pages

Draft:Oddtest 2 moved to Oddtest 2 did show up on both. .

Oddtest 3 moved to Oddtest 4, did show up on both as Oddtest 4. Oddtest 3 did not--it may have been mmoved too quickly for hte bot to catch it.

I am concerned because at least 2 paid editor are using the sandbox to mainspace method. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

DGG, you are right, I had indeed assumed. When we got the Draft namespace created, it was generally assumed that drafts would appear in the New Page Feed when moved to mainspace - it was one of the core reasons for creating the new namespace. Maybe we dodn't spell it out enough during the RfC or simply forgot the techs to do it, or maybe it worked at first but there's now a bug (there are some bugs crept into the system that need to be addressed).. With moves from user space to mainspace, I'm not so sure. It would logically follow however, that such moves should also show as new pages. Maybe these are fixes we can get the devs to do without a lot of fuss. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I just moved User:Kudpung/Places of worship in Malvern, Worcestershire (draft) to Places of worship in Malvern, Worcestershire from my user space to mainspace and it didn't show in either list. I would have expected it to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

see my talk page for an explanation of what might be the problem. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked, DGG but I was unable to follow it. AFAICS, neither new Drafts, Drafts moved to mainspace, nor user sub-pages moved to mainspace feature in the New Pages Feed whateverr the selected preferences are. These were the fundamental expectations of Page Curation and the Draft namespace, but maybe we didn't spell it out clearly enough at the time for the devs. And that was probably my fault. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamantino

Hi,

I was just creating that page, and you deleted. Please recreate the page, I will provide all the required information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagadeshanh (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't do that. The page was so blatantly promotional that I have even prevented it from being recreated ever. I was also hesitating on blocking your account for using Wikipedia for advertising. If you still feel that the page was incorrectly deleted, then please state your case at Wikipedia:Deletion review but please bear in mind that we are adamant that our encyclopedia maintained by unpaid volunteers will not be used for advertising to increase the turnover of commercial enterprise. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Martin J. Andersen.

Hello Sir,

I am creating a page about the vocalist and lead singer of the Danish band, Blindstone. I am not this person. I don't believe my page has yet been deleted, but I wanted to let you know this. If you need both of our emails, I can provide. I have made quite a few edits to the grammar and coding of the page, please let me know what you think.

Thank you.

CarlosManzana (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see the comments I have left on your draft. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Good morning,

I spoke with Martin, and I put some better sources down. He was afraid this might happen, so he's going to get some other reliable information to me as well. Thank you for the pointers.

CarlosManzana (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Who are you to delete the page " coupons and deals"

hello, 

I don't understand why you have deleted the page coupons and deals with out telling the reasons . i want the page back and as you mentioned it is violating to use coupons and deals in what way it is violating....

profitdealProfitdeal (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually, you aren't going to e doing anything, because another admin has already blocked your account.

Hi Kudpung

How are you doing today Sir? May I know what are your concerns regarding the page "Optic Marvel" plus I want you to know that I am going to add content to this page if you believe the current information is to advertise only. So i humbly request you to remove speedy delition tag. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JATIN kumar MANN (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You created the page over nine hours ago and you have not furthe developed it. It describes a non-notable product and the only source is a commercial web site. I'm sorry, but that is advertising whether it is intentional or not. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A notable association

Hi Kudpung

I noticed you deleted the Consult Australia page despite it being a long-established, notable, and respected organisation. So any issues can be avoided in future, are you able to give further insight into what you saw as being 'promotional' about the content rather than encyclopedic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoFarGoWell (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC) GoFarGoWell (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, he article has been reviewed by quite a lot of experienced editors and deleted by two administrators. That means it is not meeting our standards for inclusion. It looks like a list entry in a B2B directory. Directory listings are designed to improve an organisations web presence and with it ultimately the organisation's popularity So that makes it promotional. You are possibly connected with the organisation; please read our policy on WP:Conflict of Interest]], particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Declined submission for Ali Dibadj

Hi, Thanks very much for taking the time to look at my submission. You mention that not a single article is about the subject. I respectfully suggest this article--in a very major publication on finance--is about Ali Dibadj and his views, and is cited in the article: http://www.barrons.com/articles/time-to-break-up-p-g-this-man-thinks-so-1463197515. Thanks for your consideration and advice. -FredMcS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredmcsanchez (talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Fredmcsanchez. I'll just point out that the draft has already been reject six times by various rewiewers. Unfortunately, the source you mentioned above is not about Dibadj, it's about something he said about a breakup of Procter & Gamble. Although he might well be regarded as important and influential, that does not make him notable for Wikipedia . To see what we need for proof that people are notable please see WP:BIO and to know how to prove it, see WP:RS to find out all about sources. If you need further help, ask the reviewers who declined your draft or ask at the WP:Tea House. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Majestic Hotel Group

Hi Kudpung,

My draft for the Majestic Hotel group was put fot he speedy deletion because "the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". As it was my first article, before writing, I've seen others hotel chains' pages in other to see how it was written. So, could you help me how to improve this draft? Because I dont know how it was promotional if I only described the group. What should I do? Thanks a lot in advance!! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.97.196 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It was examined by several editors ad administratrs and found to be a protional copy from another web site. Unfortunately that is not allowed. You can start the article again, but please use the Article wizard. This s still not a gurantee that it will not be deleted, but it will help you decide what to do and how to reference it. If yiu need more help, please askat the Tea HouseKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Guidecraft Page

Greetings Kudpung,

I have been working on the Guidecraft page, which was marked as a candidate for speedy deletion. I posted on the article's talk page as an appeal to remove it's candidacy, yet the request seems to have been disregarded and the page was deleted. I believe this was an error, as I stated that the page was a work in progress, with multiple saves being made throughout the day to preserve the content written. I would like to request that the page is restored to it's previous state, so that I may continue to edit it. I hope to recieve a response soon.

-HisayukariMachii --HisayukariMachii (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The page has previously been deleted twice. I have restored the page to Draft:Guidecraft where you can continue to develop it without it being immediately deleted. When it is ready for publication, please submit it for review at WP:AfC. You will need to find better references in order to comply with WP:ORG. The company's own website and Amazon do not confer notability. If you need any help please ask at the Tea House. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings once again.

I would like to thank you for moving the page to a draft space where I can edit without fear of deletion. However I would like to clarify on something. When you say that the company's website does not confer notability, does :: that mean it may not be cited at all? Or does it mean that I must find multiple third party sources pertaining to said company, along with citations from the website? HisayukariMachii (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You must find multiple third party sources pertaining to said company. While The company's website may be allowed o corroborate some hard facts, it will not be accepted for asserting notability per WP:GNG. For that, you need multiple independent sources, all which provide in-depth treatment -no fleeting mentions in articles about other topics, no blogs, and no social media.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Something to bring to your attention

I would just like to bring a draft proposal to your attention that may affect the normal flow of new page review reform: Wikipedia:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia/Draftifying. I am not a contributor, cosponsor, or even supporter of the named proposal, and I asked proposer to look at the current efforts at reform, but I just wanted to let you know in case it would intersect/interfere with the progress already made in NPP reform. — Esquivalience (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Answering by email.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Dipina/MORElab

Hi Kudpung,

I have rechecked the contents of the article about the research group MORElab. I have done it only factual now and intended to remove any promotional contents. I do hope that now it complies with Wikipedia regultaions. My intend is to populate Wikidata too with an entry for MORElab. See the new contents at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dipina/MORElab

Kind regards,

dipina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipina (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Idolmaster Cinderella Girls: Viewing Revolution

I understand in this website, product-related articles created by newbies are likely spam, and the newbie creates a deleted page three times, it "must" be a spam. However, I've explained here, it's no value that promote a Japanese-only game in English Wikipedia. Could you give me a explain why it is an advertising? (The reason can be "It created by a new account and sourced non-English websites") Thank you. --A3268487 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately This article has been deleted three times by three experienced administrators. This has nothing to do with you being a new editor. The article is an advert. It;s a promotion for a product that isn't even released yet. If you want to use Japanese sources, then you must sufficiently translate them to convince us that the article is notable. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

All five reliable Japanese news sites listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Foreign language (4games.net, Dengeki, ITmedia, impress.co.jp, and Famitsu already sourced), all of them reported the game, so I believe the article is notable. I've explained in Ubiquity's talk page, source Famitsu is acceptable, sadly he/she didn't reply anything. --A3268487 (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources alone do not make a subject notable, especially hose that just 'report' something.. What is this gane notable for? Has it become the most played MMORPG in the world? It doesn't even exist yet. I suggest you ask at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's notable because it "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as it was concern by many media even isn't released yet. Japanese media introduct any Japanese console games and fans buy it, some are popular and some are niche, that it is. I didn't think this kind of articles are better than this one – I mean, you say this article is not a promotion, then it is not, you say it is, then it is. --A3268487 (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Doc the Destroyer was around already in 1987. It has a history. It's the wrong kind of comparison. Sources alone do not make a subject notable, especially those that just 'report' something that doesn't even exist yet.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)..

You mean the tone itself is not like an advertising, but it's too early to create a page? If so, could you restore the history and redirect it to The Idolmaster. Those information might useful for future writing. --A3268487 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I have done the redirect but the content stays deleted. In a few years time if the game becomes notable, you can ask for it to be restored. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello!!! TeamSupport page

Hello Kudpung, cool name!

I apologize for making you delete the TeamSupport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page a second time... I was making significant edits to the content (adding strengths and weaknesses, competitors, etc.) to make the page more neutral and accidentally clicked "save" instead of "preview". Sorry!

I initially went in a few days ago to add that the company had recently opened an office in South Africa only to find the page had been entirely deleted. No message to clarify or rectify the content like I am accustomed to, just outright deletion. I am a research professional with over a decade of experience in secondary research. I was sad to see that despite taking a neutral point of view (i.e. listing the positive and negatives of the company) and gathering an array of third party sources that the page was deleted.

I added the page as a software user and seeing how poor its competitor pages are, yet these pages still remain...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Solutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayako https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshdesk

Can you please help me? I just want to make this right and get the page in good condition.

Thank you for your time,

Mabmattbrown (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mabmattbrown. It's probably not quite quite accurate to suggest that you weren't aware of the deletions. SwisterTwister placed a Deletion Notice on the article place on 13:27, July 13, 2016, and KGirlTrucker81 placed a Deletion notice on its re-creation on August 17, 2016 . Additionally, 331dot Added 'advert' and 'notability' tags to the article on 21:25, August 17, 2016 but removed them again because he correctly felt the deletion notice was sufficient

Then of course there are the numerous messages on your talk page from 7 different users or bots, which you have chosen to hide from view but which of course are actually all still there. Those messages contain many blue links to advice, help, and policy pages and I think it would now be a good idea for you to follow them, because you'll get your answers there. The example articles you mention are quite different - what we would say 'comparing apples to oranges' or see WP:OTHERSTUFF for more explanation. You still need to declare your connection with TeamSupport, but that said, I personally believe it highly unlikely that the company will meet our notability criteria any time soon. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

First off, thank you for your response! I really appreciate it. I did not receive the deletion notices in July as I was not using Wikipedia that month, my log-in history should confirm this. The second one was when I was trying to revise the article when it was shortly deleted thereafter (literally minutes, right as I was editing). I'm sorry if it came off that I was trying to "stretch the truth" on this, I'm sure it's something you get here all the time and I really am not attempting to do this. To be perfectly honest the reason why I cleaned up my talk page was the fact that I am overwhelmed with information and you are the first person who has actually provided me with a "non-canned" response. Probably not the best reason but it's why I took that action. I read over the entire WP:N page and I would please like another chance to improve the TeamSupport article, as mentioned on the page "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort" and I feel I was trying to clarify the notability when it was deleted again. Given my history as a research professional I feel I could greatly improve upon the notability even further through the use of even more third-party/independent sources to improve how fair and balanced the article is. May I please have the page temporarily restored or the content placed in my sandbox for further editing? Again my apologies for not being an expert on the deletion process, this is the first time a page I've created has ever been deleted. Thanks again! Mabmattbrown (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

NPP Part2

Hello Kudpung,

I may have finally caught up to what you are proposing related to new pages, please let me know if I am still off!

Are you wanting to have the following changes made:

• Technical changes:

  1 remove the (patrol) permission from the Autoconfirmed users group and the Confirmed users groups

Yes

• Possibly also from the Pending changes reviewers group

Yes. The new right does not grandfather the holders of other rights

• 2 Create a new user group Patrollers (the name isn't important we can call it "New Page Patrollers" etc locally)

Yes. To give it a new look, we're considering naming it New Page Reviewer. This creates a nice combination of AfC Reviewer and New Page Patroller

• Give the new Patrollers group the (patrol) permission

Yes, in so far as this is a new user right and affects access to the Page Curation flyout tool, and any Twinkle templates that are concerned with critical maintenance tagging. Note that it is possible to selectively restrict Twinkle templates (and their functions)to various user groups.

• 3 Give administrators the ability to add or remove membership for users to the Patrollers group

Yes

• 4 Have the script maintainers for the "Articles for creation helper script" use group membership in Patrollers as an access control.

Not quite. The effort is to transfer the equivalent of the Helper Script templates to the Page Curation tool, because Dratfs, Drafts moved to mainspace and user sub pages moved from user space to mainspace should be listed in the New Pages Feed. (nThis may curretly not be happening and it is a bug which is currently being examined).

Did I miss anything (or even get everything completely wrong!)?

Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux, I'm still rather concerned that you are still finding this difficult to grasp. Perhaps I take too much for granted, but it appears to be fairly clear to those of us in the team working on these improvements, and most others. Perhaps it's because you have only recently begun to take an interest in this 5 year old saga. Whatever, we would certainly appreciate your support for it when push comes to shove. I will take this opportunity to reiterate that this is all to:

• Find a solution to the declaration by New Page Patrollers that they are giving up because the Foundation has not provided the support we need. (That's why the backlog is now increasing at 30% per week and now stands at just under 12,000)
• Find a solution to the constant reports (often at ANI) of misuse of AfC both by new editors and by regular reviewers.
• Find a solution to the WP:ACTRIAL which was passed by a massive consensus but rejected by teFoundation for what are now clearly all the wrong reasons. The solution we are aimng for is the reopening of development of the completely new Article Wizard/Landng page.
• Find solutions to stem the exponentially increasing tide of exploitations by corporations and their PR consutants ofWikipedia as a free advertising media, but without discouraging bona fidae, good faith creators of (almost) acceptable quality.
• And the new user right is NOT under any circumstances whatsoever a move by admins to extend or broaden their powers - that needs to be clearly understood because many RfC fail due to a certain contingent (diffs available) using any 'rights' related RfC as a platform to denigrate and disparage the corps of admins.
• Please note also that this project does not necessarily engender the immediate closedown of AfC. Caution should be exercised when reading the comments of users who refuse to read entire threads here, at WT:AfC, the WP:VP, or user talk:DGG before commenting.

See my replies in your text above, and I am pinging DGG on this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, thank you for the additional information!

• I have mostly stayed out of any AFC drama with the exception of some of the Draft: page arguments at MfD.
• Points 1,2,3 above are certainly of the "easy" variety and was really the only part I initial interest in. It's hard to tell if there will be strong community support for it - but if you have statistics that show that (patrol) isn't being appropriately used by the masses it should go a long way. It shouldn't be too controversial, as it alone doesn't prevent any existing editors from editing or creating pages. #4 certainly will take some developer time to improve - and if it helps lead to better content management it should be easily accepted.
• I agree without that this should not be about administrators - having the community in an RfC discuss and approve of the granting and revocation criteria should go a long way to avoid that (it went fairly well on the "page mover" rfc).
• Question Do you think it is worth trying to move forward with these portions without a solution to the other problems? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux, when I was admitted to Management College in 1970, we freshys were taught that there is no such thing as problems - only solutions. Wikipedia is organic and items unforseen at its creation need to be addressed as they become apparent and damage the way the public regards Wikipedia, and negatively influence the ways in which its contributors (and salaried staff) interact. We are already moving forward on all points, namely a) improving the way new pages are assessed for quality and appropriateness, b) controlling the way new users create their first articles and helping them to get it it right, c} developing and/or improving tools to address these functions, and last but not least d) ensuring that that those who are reviewing new content and/or helping new users are themselves competent to do it. Progress is now being made, but putting the various actors under stress to get it it all done more quickly would almost certainly set the clock back again. We've been working on this fr 5 years and although the backlogs at AfC will continue to grow, we can wait another five months or even longer. We are currently waiting for a new review of one connected RfC where several experienced users feel the closer exercised a supervote and may have closed in exact opposition to what appears to have been a clear consensus. This will also take time. Baby steps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the business management schools call them "opportunities" now :D — xaosflux ^Talk 16:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was nearly 50 years ago when I first went to university - and it was a real university, not one of those MBA degree mills that persist in trying to list themselves on Wikipedia. 'Opportunities' smacks a bit of thinking up solutions that are looking for a problem ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

• News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses

• Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica

• In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising

• Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks

• Traffic report: Olympic views

• Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)

• Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted

Hi Kudpung. I am contacting you following the deletion of the new page "Georg Kraus". Before this event, the article had been deleted after a discussion.

In fact, I had substantially improved the article and changed the text at the very last stages of the discussion but my action came too late and was not noticed. Persons involved in the discussion most probably did not notice the new update before deleting the article under discussion.

Therefore, I created a new draft and submitted the article through the regular review process. This is when SwisterTwister (who participated in the discussion process) reviewed, accepted and published live the article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wynton1989. As a matter of fact, she had given some encouraging hints during the discussion.

Therefore, I am appealing to you to reconsider your deletion of the article "Georg Kraus" and republish it live because that content is substantially different from the actual draft that was subject of the discussion.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Wynton1989 (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The page was last deleted 04:24, August 16, 2016 by Hut 8.5 as G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georg Kraus), He is now the admin to contact. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this person is really challenging the result of the AfD that you closed. They thought that the result was wrong because it didn't take into account edits they made during the course of the discussion. To contest the AfD they recreated the article with the same content and I speedily deleted that under G4. Hut 8.5 19:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hut 8.5. I appreciate your taking the time to reply to my request so promptly. My point in my quest for restoration of the Georg Krauss article is not in fact to challenge the result of the previous AFD. Not at all.

In fact the article that Hut 8.5 has just speedily-deleted has significant new content relative to the one that was AFD-deleted (modulo the very last addition). I had tried "in extremis" to salvage that draft but my intervention came too late, the delay had past and the debate was over. In other words, there is a slight misunderstanding around here.

My suggestion in my first post above is that, most probably, this is what SwisterTwister had noticed when she reviewed the draft I officially submitted, accepted then published.

Therefore, I am appealing to your understanding and asking kindly that you restore this new article.

Thank you for your kind cooperation. Wynton1989 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

HI Wynton1989. Firstly, I don't know why I am being drawn into this, but of course I'm willing to help where I can. However, I cannot simply override a fellow admin's decision. Normally, where deleting admins decline to restore an article that was deleted by a due process, there are specific channels where request for a refund can be made, and they will be reviewed by further, uninvolved, experienced editors. The physical act of restoring an article can only be made by an admin. I have just reviewed the deleted article and I do not find it necessarily apt for inclusion in Wikipedia, but that is a personal opinion. It appears to have been carefully crafted as a commissioned piece and in spite of he many sources, it does not provide any concrete reasons why this person should be considered notable - althoough it might be that he passes the criteria at WP:PROF but unfortunately that particular set of BLP crteria is not my area of expertise. The fact that he has created 'notable' books is pure, highly disallowed WP:POV - books generally only become notable by Wikipedia standards when they ave been awarded a notable prize. 'expert' is also an opinion of the article author, whereas 'specialist' would be more palatable to Wikipedia reviewers. The final External Link is blatant advertising and has nothing to with the biographical article which reads like a promotional piece for LinkedIn. Of the references provided, many are to sources that we are unable to access and verify, the page numbers of written works are not cited, at least one source is an interview which while it can be listed as potential proof of some claim, cannot be used to assert notability. That's all just for starters; IMHO the article requires a fundamental rewrite in user or draft space before it can be allowed to be published. But you will be spared these criticisms as I will not be venturing comment on an undeletion request. I'm pinging Hut 8.5 again, and additionally Duffbeerforme, SwisterTwister, and 27century who appears to be the actual creator of the current revision. Although you are not directly contesting my closure of the deletion debate, I suggest the place to go in the first instance with your request is Wikipedia:Deletion review and if they they chide you for choosing the wrong noticeboard, you are welcome to tell them that it was at my suggestion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice for WP:NPP

Hey. I'm thinking of jumping into WP:NPP again. But I think that is my weakest area in Wikipedia. Can you offer some advice? Thanks! Jianhui67 ^T★C 12:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jianhui67. There is no better advice than that at WP:NPP. It also gets regularly updated. Paid editing and the attempted use of Wikipedia for financial gain is steadily getting worse and becoming a real problem but apart from updating the Foundation Terms of Use, the new staff at WMF are very slow to understand that NPP is an extremely important fundamental feature of Wikipedia. I had some talks with them in Italy this year and I'm hoping now that they will begin to prioritize it. You may wish to read Orangemoody. For experienced editors, such pages are not too hard to recognise, but the majority of new page patrollers lack experience, don't read the tutorial, and they checkmark such pages as 'patrolled OK'.

When placing maintenance tags on a new page, always use the message feature of the Curation Tool to notify the author, otherwise these pages can remain perma-tagged for years - this is not Commons. We have again a massive backlog at NPP so your help would be very much appreciated.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I have placed several tags on a page and notified the user accordingly. Can you check if it was done correctly? Jianhui67 ^T★C 04:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice on wikipedia writing

Hi, I just started to edit my first wikipedia page about Infogram. The content has been flagged for deletion and I would like any advice on where to improve. ThanksPedmmsou (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedmmsou (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pedmmsou, please see the various messages o your talk page and follow the links in them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Love for the Elderly

Hi Kudpung, I have a question. You marked the article I started, "Love for the Elderly," for deletion. It's a global nonprofit that has an extensive outreach, so I'm rather confused as to why it should be deleted. It may need to be better written though, because I'm new to Wikipedia and don't have a lot of experience writing these things. Thanks, Jill — Preceding unsigned comment added by JillianZaputis (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jill. The reason why it was flagged for deletion was stated in the template you removed. The claims made in the article may well be true but unfortunately even if it were a very large and very important organisation with millions of members and with offices in many countries, any such claims made by this article are not (yet) proven by any important, in-depth articles (not fleeting mentions) in the mainstream press, or television documentaries about it. Therefore it does not meet the Wikipedia criteria at WP:ORG. I know this sounds hard for a non-profit like this, but the importance and significace of any kind of organisation has to be established, and then supported by reliable, third-party sources. Self-published pieces, interviews, press releases, YouTube videos, or blogs are not acceptable, nor are many news-media type websites whose content is not audited. I have sent the article to WP:AfD where its outcome will be debated by our editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I totally understand, and even though it is a large organization, I now understand that the article won't work the current way it's written. Maybe someone else wikl be able to write the article better than me, with better sources? Oh well. I was just trying to give Wikipedia contributing a shot and help it in any way I can. Guess I've got a lot of work to do before I become any good at this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JillianZaputis (talk • contribs) 10:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Jill, don't get despondent! All of us started somewhere, but a few of us have picked up the rules and requirements perhaps a bit quicker than others - that's what turns us into permanent maintenance workers when we can't think of any more articles to write. That said, it's not your writing that's at fault, it's your choice of article and it just happens to be one that won't (or probably won't} pass our fixed criteria for insertion. let's see what happens at the AfD. I don't hold much hope, but you never know, and when you want to write an article that is likely to meet our criteria, there's always the Tea House or people like me to lend a helping hand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, thank you for your encouragement! I understand. Maybe I'll look into trying new articles to write about! I do agree it was hard to find sources, but I also researched the charity and it literally is doing such amazing and inspiring work throughout the globe on a huge scale so I thought I'd write about it. Oh well. Maybe I'll try something different to write about next time, not an organization like that. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JillianZaputis (talk • contribs) 10:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Kudpung/NPP

Hi! I was going through some cleanup categories and noticed that User:Kudpung/NPP was populating Category:Wikipedia shortcut box first parameter needs fixing. Would it be possible to add |category=no to the shortcut box at the top of the page to remove it? (I can't do it myself - it's fully protected.) Thank you! Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! Please check to see that I've done it right. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops - I forgot to mention that you should also change {{Ombox/shortcut}} to {{Shortcut}}, as the |category= parameter is only on the latter. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done please check again. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me - thank you! Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 19:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Some suggestions to your NPP right draft

I have some suggested changes here to your draft to the patrolling right User:Kudpung/NPP. While most of it is copyediting and removing redundancies, I have added a section that address the granting of the right, as well as the NPP academy (and how standards may be relaxed if a teacher pledges to supervise a student). Thanks, — Esquivalience (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC) n

Hi Esquivalience, thak you for your interest and I know and appreciate your interest in these NPP matters, but that copying of a full protected page in my userspace actually contourns protocol (a few years ago an admin nearly lost his bit for doing something similar). best is to make suggestions on its talk page in my user space. Making it too public at the moment will only invite the trolls and anti-admin brigade - this is a very long-term draft and there is at the moment absolutely no indication if ever such a project will get the go-ahead, let's hope it does! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

A common practice in software development is to copy ("fork") a project and then make changes, so maybe my programming side has gotten me ahead of myself! — Esquivalience (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Esquivalience, usurping uses' drafts out of teir user space is a no no on Wikipedia - even editing it there is frowned on . It's pretty much the only space that an an editor is allowed to 'own'. That all said, we urgently need your help - a two-week over enthusiastic new user has jumped the gun on he NPP reform proposals. See below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I agree that editors mostly own pages in their user spaces and that uninvited editing of others' user pages is often seen as disruptive, but I don't believe you "own" your user space in the sense that you can forbid others from constructively forking it as you appear to be doing here. The only advice in WP:UP about copying is this: "As with all other edits, user space contributions are irrevocably licensed for copying and reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License and GNU Free documentation license." It seems to me you're trying to rescind your license from Esquivalience, which is something you cannot do. Rebbing 19:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a question of etiquette, which once again by your insistence that everything on Wkipedia is rigidly interpreted and carried out to the letter (diffs available), you do not appear to observe. You do not own our rules. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I find it strange that such a rule (etiquette or otherwise) wouldn't be mentioned at UP, which covers fairly extensively the rules, conventions, and expected etiquette surrounding user space, including the rule that your license any material you put in your user space. I don't own our rules, but neither do you, and I don't think you should be upbraiding others for breaking nonexistent courtesies. (The only mention I could find of such an incident in the UP talk archives—someone actually spoofing a user page: a far more objectionable activity—settled on the conclusion that, as long as it was attributed in the history, there was nothing to be done.)

I don't believe I've ever insisted on the letter of our policies and guidelines as opposed to insisting on respect for the intent behind them, but I don't demand diffs: this was not intended as a hostile visit and, ultimately, it's none of my business. (Were it my business, I would ask on WT:UP for views on the matter.) Best. Rebbing 20:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your comments almost always verge on the hostile (or at least where I have come across your remarks) or are combative in nature, often stirring up things that are long over and done with. You rarely extend courtesies and I don't expect you to support anything I do. You can do me one favour though and start by staying off my talk page henceforth and refraining from stalking my edits.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You're very much mistaken: I don't have a problem with you, and I find your significant dedication to the project admirable. My only objection has been your treatment of our written policies and guidelines as mere suggestions to be disregarded as you see fit. Moreover, I resent the suggestion that I have "stalked" your edits: I came here only because this thread was linked to in the (widely-announced) patroller right RFC (diff). I also suggest you re-read WP:LAWYER, especially § Misuse of the term: "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. . . . [S]imply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer. . . ." Rebbing 09:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Georg Kraus

Wynton1989 has asked for a deletion review of Georg Kraus. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 18:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll

Consensus seems to be overwhelmingly against. I don't think this is going to go anywhere else in the next 9 days so you may wish to either withdraw it or ask for a premature close from someone who can independently but briefly summarise the reasons why. Besides which, I need your help and eventual collboration on something I'm brewing that's obliquely related ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I'm back now though : )

Looks like the windmill's been tilted for now : )

What collaboration were you thinking about? - jc37 13:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We need your help now. If you are in favour of proposal D which I have just added at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Right_to_click_.22Mark_this_page_as_patrolled.22_shouldn.27t_be_given_to_every_auto-confirmed_user please see the exchange below with Xaosflux, and on the new users talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that it's now been closed and a draft started at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right. I laid out some thoughts there. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 13:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note

Good morning Kudpung (it's nearly 11 in Thailand!). Just so you know, I've responded to you on my talk page. This is in case you did not receive a ping. Thanks, Zero^talk 15:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Snowycats

I noted your concerns re: Snowycats and NPP. Although I appreciate your involvement here, has Snowycats actually done anything over which to be concerned? Any significant errors? DS (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The user's participation at AfC has been rejected for significant lack of experience and not following instructions. The user is not following he instructions at NPP. Both which appear to demonstrate that apart from the tone of his response to mentions of their work, they do not appear consider it necessary to read instructions. NPP is a process which is even more critical than AfC and requires even more experience. It is in bad shape, and the load on experienced users there is too great to also mentor new users who are determined to work in meta areas that are out of their depth. If we had more admins where were actively concerned with the quality of reviewing at AfC and NPP, adminswoud have less reason to monitor the work of other admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

NPP

Hi Kudpung, thought you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Right_to_click_.22Mark_this_page_as_patrolled.22_shouldn.27t_be_given_to_every_auto-confirmed_user. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi xaosflux. Thanks for the heads up. I have added quickly the essential wording of the draft RfC we had in preparation. While it is to be expected that due to our slowness someone else might grasp the initiative, in this case, the user has not even read WT:NPP to see what is under discussion. I aGF on his initiative but let's hope it's not going to set back two years of work by DGG, me, Esquivalience, and others. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

PS: This is a very young new user. They only registered two weeks ago. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you would do best to get this to not be a !vote on VP, but instead to direct people to help review, contribute, comment to the "draft RFC" you mentioned. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

xaosflux, I don't know how I can legitimately stop that RfC on he VP now - like you, I have a vast amount of experience on Wikipedia but unless it were a blatant disruption of due process, even raw new users can do what they lke (NPP is the proof of it). I can only appeal to the user's comprehension and my offer to help him start over. Unfortunately, a lot of the time on Wikipedia is spent telling new users that critical management and maintenance areas are tasks they are not ready for. I would rather be turning some of my many articles into FA, but I feel NPP is something that urgently needs to be cleaned up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If you already have a page started elsewhere, or can frame one up, we can move to direct this discussion to the already in process page. Esquivalience also mentioned existing "ongoing efforts" - there are a lot of changes you are working on, I think the page mover rfc might be a good example. (Basically it gets "advertised" on village pump, but discussed centrally elsewhere). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like that was already done now - was working my messages sequentially! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's going to be a train wreck of an RfC. Why can't people learn to collaborate? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

At the above discussion, you made a comment that the WMF is looking into requiring a right for NPP work. Do you know the Phabricator task under which they are tracking that work? --Izno (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Why should this necessarily be being handled by Phabricator? As far as I know this is still at internal discussion stage in the offices of the Foundation. In the normal process of things, Phabricatior will be instructed if and when there is cause for their intervention, which may concern other upgrades to the Page Curation which is MediaWiki core software over which we as a mere volunteer community have no more influence than we did at WP:ACTRIAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Phabricator is the pretty-standard even-for-just discussion location at this time for technical changes c.f. the RFC tag therein and other various (and sometimes languishing) feature requests from the community. Sometimes the work is discussed/documented on a wiki page on mediawiki.org or on meta, but almost always there's a Phabricator ticket associated with it (aside from routine bug fixing). I haven't found we as a volunteer community have no more influence to be true--the fact that Page Curation even exists is clearly at the behest of (at least the) Wikipedians who work on en.WP, and there are clearly countless other changes made to core software enacted because of the wiki-workers's assorted feedback. Anyway, it was a curiosity; if it's not on Phabricator or Meta or elsewhere, that's fine. --Izno (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Izno. I have been contacted this morning (my time (UTC+7) by another member of the en.Wiki NPP reform team who confirms what you tell me. Perhaps things have changed since the days of Bugzilla where even junior engineers were given the discretion of refusing or accepting 'bug' requests. You are possibly not familiar with what happened at WP:ACTRIAL. You are possibly also not aware also that although it was officially a Foundation development, the Foundation withdrew its technical support (or so we were given to understand by a junior staffer) for Page Curation some time ago and since then no real bugs in the software have been addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally they don't, but that doesn't mean they can't still. I read up on the details of ACTRIAL right around the time it was featured in the Signpost, but not since. As for Page Curation languishing, don't know what to say about that--probably just that the WMF has had different priorities at different times in the past decade and change. --Izno (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have created the page

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right. Now what to do? As I don't know how to start RFC, you can start the RFC and if you feel you can close my discussion at Village Pump proposal section. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

NPP

500/90 cannot be an absolute minimum. Admins must have discretion. I'd change that to 'normally" or "unelessspecially jsutified" . I would myself have wanted to and been qualified in a much shorter time than 90 days. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Heads-up (NPP RfC)

Probably as a result of the hurried roll-out of the RfC after the jumping-the-gun by someone else on the VP/P, there are a few small issues left in the proposal you've posted, like a broken link to Wikipedia:STiki#Using STiki and a typo ('knowledhge', in the intro), but also some bits and pieces that could make things confusing. In particular, " (see: Requests for permissions. Note: Not proposed here: The numerical and experience qualifications for users to be authorised to patrol new pages. This will be determined in a subsequent RfC if this RfC gains consensus, and as such is not up for discussion here." Most of the potential confusion is from the missing parenthesis, but it would also help to separate the Note more clearly from the rest of the text, since it could now, at least by careless readers, be read as though the proposed userright is not proposed there. (A linebreak prior to the Note and maybe italicizing it should help, though).

Not trying to be annoying or pedantic, by the way—just hoping to see the proposal become successful, aware of how even the smallest confusion can easily derail an RfC and sadly also aware not everyone at en.wiki reads everything as carefully as they probably should. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, AddWittyNameHere. I generally take extreme care how I formulate RfCs, and that's why they are usually successful. I've been working for 12 hours including a lengthy Skype with the team to put this mess right. You are perfectly correct but I don't have time now, but please go ahead and make the fixes you described. You can mark the edits as minore, with 'fmt' (or something similar) for the edit summary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. You're welcome, and yes, I know you usually take care, hence the heads-up. Let's all hope for a successful RfC. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Slightly-related note, since you just said "I probably spend too much time on each new page, and also get distracted a lot by following suspicious leads to socks and COI" there. That reminds me of an IP I just came across checking the oldest pages--for some inexplicable reason, the IP was reverting a lot of Olympic bids pages back from post-merge redirect state--even though those are hardly visible redirects and they've been redirects for a good 4 years now...makes me wonder how he came upon them, to say the least. Re-reverted and left them a talkpage message, but might be worth keeping an eye upon. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, AddWittyNameHere, keep an eye on them. If they don't respond to the message and/or if they continue to revert the redirects, let me know and I'll give them a knee-jerk in Huelva. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Will do. They appear to be currently offline, but I'll watch them the next day or two to make sure. By the way, no need to ping me, you've been on my watchlist since you helped me with a COI/SPA-editor back in Oct 2013. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Backlog

Have you noticed that all of the pages in the queue are from new users? Jbh^Talk 15:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC) (Please {{ping}} on reply.)

I haven't, Jbh. It's odd, but it doesn't surprise me. That's one of the reasons why DGG and I and others have been working for months to prepare and produce the RfC that's just been launched. Unfortunately we currently have no way (that I know of) of compiling stats for anything surrounding new page input, the users that produce them, or the users who patrol them. If you are going to support the RfC (which of course is entirely up to you) , it might be worth mentioning it in your vote rationale. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I will add it in to my support !vote. I am glad you got the RFC up. It is very well written and documented and looks like a lot of care and work went into it. Jbh^Talk 15:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I did my best with the drafting Jbh, but of course the necessity, ideas, and research do not stem from me alone. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm just spending a quick hour on NPP (much to my family's disgust) to see if I can corroborate your findings. Some have a significant number of edits already, but of the first 10 or so I have patrolled I have deleted or Tagged for deletion half of them. That said, when I patrol abo=ut 20 pages and systematically check those again that have already been patrolled, I usually have to remonstrate with at least two patrollers. That's too high, much too high. can't use it in the RfC though because I am unable to produce stats for it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was going on the filter results ie New users vs Show all so maybe it is an issue with the filter rather than all being new users. I usually keep the tool on New users and today I have been deletion tagging about half of what I see. Normally it is about a quarter when working from the back of the queue even at that rate I need to stop after 20 or so to keep from becoming too critical/cynical. Jbh^Talk 18:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Barbara J Finlayson-Pitts

Hi thanks for the message on my page. I just wanted to make a blue link to the Tolman Award and Garvan–Olin Medal lists and I thought 242 publications were significant. Have a good day. Viking59 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Deletion Discussion about EduTechnoz

Hi there, I replied to your message about EduTechnoz being up for deletion: "Thank you for your feedback. I went back and edited out any mention of Diana Al Dajani so that it won't sound like a promotional bio for her. I also took out some references that may be redundant. I've been interested in education for a long time and thought, since eduTechnoz has been mentioned in the press a lot lately and has actually revolutionized the way children can learn Arabic (there aren't a lot of online games out there for learning the Arabic language), that it deserves a page. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the page.Nadiaqas (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Nadiaqas"

Please let me know if I need to make anymore changes so the page would stay up and when it's safe to remove the tag. Thanks! Nadiaqas (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Nadiaqas

Re: Deletion Discussion about Shameel Jainulabdeen

Give me some enough time to complete his profile. He is a real person. and the information i have provided in the articles are accurate. wait until i complete this.

thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajerushan (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Malvern Water (bottled water)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Malvern Water (bottled water) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yellow Dingo -- Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Malvern Water (bottled water)

The article Malvern Water (bottled water) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Malvern Water (bottled water) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yellow Dingo -- Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Freindly suggestion

You have to remove that Twinkle change. Maximum oppose comes due to that. Twinkle is loved by all. Unless you remove that Twinkle change, then the oppose % will increase. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.57.179 (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It is quite beyond me how this has become such a focus of attention, considering that the relevant part of the proposal ends with “This is NOT up for discussion here”. I wonder if the disclaimer should have been made big, bold, and red or surrounded by a marquee rather than parenthesized. Kudos is due for the forthright statement though, furthering transparency about the larger vision of the reform. Seems to be a recurrent theme here, that a discussion about the design of a floor-plan devolves into an argument over the respective merits of hardwood and tile.—Odysseus1479 04:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That is precisely what causes most RfC to fail, Odysseus1479, and as a proponent of the use of analogy in my teaching, yours here is excellent - perhaps you should say it somewhere on that RfC if you haven't already. I admit in hindsight that while I have a vast experience in forulating successful RfC, it was very unwise to mention Twinkle - so even I am not perfect even though some of the less polite users expect me to be. Unfortunately we were forced into this RfC prematurely by an extremely new user to whom I nevertheless gave credit to for the proposal for which I hastily made the draft that had been in preparation for months, and before it went live had even been reviewed by at least one Bureacrat (xaosflux), and one Arbcom member highly respected editor (DGG) who has been deeply concerned about the chaos at both NPP and AfC for years. Now we have to put up with some users calling us insane and others yelling at us in CAPITALS.

Nevertheless, split closes are perfectly acceptable - I do it myself - so a truly experienced closer will easily be able to correctly parse the different kinds of votes and the ones that are totally irrelevant, and declare consensus for all or part of the proposal, while accurately summarising any other advice, suggestions, or recommendations on which a significant number participants concur. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I am quite puzzled by the concentration on it also--it's just a mechanism, and the afc is about the concept. There is some radical misunderstanding here, and I cannot figure out what it is. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If you could just look at

This- maybe I'm missing something; apologies if I am. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

CSD and NPP

Restricting CSD to NPPers seems to be a significant sticking point to the RfC, and I certainly can understand the reasoning. I suggest that part of the proposal be removed, and here's why: the NPP right only conveys the technical ability to set the "patrolled" flag, we still tighten the Orangemoody loophole and make brand new articles less attractive to speedy taggers. Modification to the CSD policy can be handled separately and doesn't necessarily need technical controls to prevent overhasty tagging. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr. Entirely up to you - as everyone is quick to point out out: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I'm having nothing more to do with it - besides which, with Wikipedia being a 100% USA controlled project and me not even within 12 hours of their time zone there is little I can do. You'll note also that many of the oppose otes are simply because I am behind this NPP reform project. We were forced into launching this RfC hurriedly by a two-week old newbie without time to refer back to the team. If people are too short sighted to realise that this RfC is not about Twinkle then they are not in the slightest bit interest in improving the way new pages are controlled. That's why I'm extremely disappointed in the personal attacks, and flawed reasoning by members even of the Arbcom.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear which of the oppose votes you say are simply because of you. None of them mention you by name and I didn't see any allusions on a quick reading. Would you like to back up your aspersions? BethNaught (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I would not. This is my talk page, I've not mentioned anyone, and I'm entitled to my opinions. Did you feel personally addressed? I can't think why - I've usually appreciated your work: [2] [3] [4]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

NPP sorting question

Prompted by the RfC but maybe not precisely pertaining to it, so I thought I'd just reach out and see either if you could direct me on how to do this, or if this would be an idea worth pursuing if it isn't yet possible. I'm wondering: is there a way to sort new pages by category (at least for those which have one)? Or search for keyword in the text? What made me think of it is that fully a third of the as-yet unreviewed pages I've created actually have had another editor look at them--they've been rated on various projects' quality scales (here, here, and here, for instance). I realize those quality scales aren't the same as the NPP standards (especially if standards for NPP participation may soon be raised) but in terms of the backlog, it made me think people--myself included!--might be more excited about participating at NPP if it were a little easier to find things close to our own interests and expertise. Does this already exist and I'm just overlooking it? Thanks for the guidance! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Innisfree987. Please read the tutorial at WP:NPP and make any suggestions for new features at WT:Page Curation.

Project templates (article ratings) are generally placed on a new article's talk place long after it is passed by the Patrolers for inclusion. With the exception of FA and GA which are community peer reviewed articles, project ratings are arbitrary, are unofficial, and are a guideline only for priority for people whose work is otherwise mainly concentrated on articles in that particular sphere of interest. As such, they are not able to be used as search criteria for NPP - the New Pages Feed is live and appears before any new edits have been made.

There is no way that we as a volunteer community can raise the 'standards' at NPP, the criteria for aticles are determined by policy and described at WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DELETION. We can only try to introduce methods hat will insist that people doing the patrolling are suitably and sufficiently experienced for the task. If the RfC is successful, Anyone who meets the threshold (probably 90/500 + experience) would be able to apply for the right. Naturally it is hoped that in the interest of the quality of our articles, that you will support the RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for directing me to WT:Page Curation, I'll have a look. Have read the tutorial at NPP start to finish a few times now. Couple things to clarify my previous comment and then I'll take it over to Page Curation. I wasn't suggesting talk page project templates be used as the method of sorting new pages (it makes sense that my pages might be the exception in having project templates added while a page is still in the NPP feed)--as I mentioned, I was thinking of categories, for those entries that have them, or perhaps a plaintext search, the way you can presently filter by editor. Likewise to be clear I understand that the RfC is not about changing standards for what articles should be accepted, but about the cut-off for which editors may participate, and for establishing standards by which that participation right may be revoked. I did weigh in supporting that, for what it's worth. Anyway thanks for pointing me to Page Curation, I'll look over there about furthering the conversation. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung - You flagged my contribution "Chef Asif Rasheed Syed" who is a celebrity chef and I don't understand why. Thomas Keller has the same kind of page as many other celebrity chef's. Chef Asif has earned enough recognition to be positioned on wikipedia. Please explain what we would need to do to change that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrios Settos (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)