User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jul 2017

Anomaly w/curation tool or...?

an AfD template was removed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, Atsme, possibly - it did link to an old 2005 AfD. Discuss it first with Finngall, and then perhaps with MusikAnimal. I don't know anything about the actual code. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page) I know nothing about the tool--I merely found the page via WP:BADAFD and undid everything with the expectation that someone would soon come along and redo things correctly. I can offer nothing other than to note that perhaps the NPP tools aren't the best ones to use on a page that's about a decade removed from being new. --Finngall ^talk 21:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps MusikAnimal will see the ping and look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:Sisters of the Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament

Thanks for going over it again. I'll be honest, the article just looked like an unnotable organization, but it is obviously a copyvio of the website you provided in the link. Is there a tool in Twinkle to find copyvios easily? Thanks SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion nomination of Bank Band

Please take a look at WP:A7M#The big mistakes:

"A7 is not about whether the indications of "importance or significance" can be verified. An article does not have to have inline citations or sources, let alone reliable sources to fail A7. Those are concerns for an articles for deletion discussion."

Thank you. Professorjohnas (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Your A7 request has been declined by User:Ritchie333. Professorjohnas (talk)20:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Professorjohnas, policies trump guidelines: WP:V - If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

But WP:DP says "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it." Anyway, what's that old saying, "The Devil can cite Wikipedia Policy for his purpose". I won't complain if somebody AfDs it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub, Ritchie. It just goes to prove yet again that many of our rules and regulations contradict each other. It's not a case of "The Devil can cite Wikipedia Policy for his purpose", but more a case of whichever policy come to mind first when addressing an issue or answering a question. Catch 22. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Fortanix

Hello there, I dont have conflict of interest and am not associated with Fortanix. I'm long time wikipedia editor with new interest in security and hardware. Intel SGX is a great leap in computer security and Fortanix is a legitimate company. Wikipedia has entries on many companies like Bracket Computing, ForgeRock, Hashicorp that are similar to Fortanix. Request you to keep the Fortanix page. Groovy12 (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Groovy12 A plethora of sources does not automatically make a subject notable. There are no claims in the article of the company having done anything special that merits a Wikipedia article. As such, it's just another LinkedIn entry and fails WP:ORG. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Notable event is $8M fund raise which makes it a significant company in cloud security. It follows the same standard as other companies I cited. Cheers! Groovy12 (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, you are right the article doesn't cite the fund raise. Let me add that after finding a good reference. Groovy12 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Groovy12, $8mio is nothing special nowadays. Was the fundraising for an important help program in a developing country and was it heavily reported in the media? I do insist (others may disagree) that Wikipedia is not to be confused with the run-of-the-mill company listing sites. If it were, the company I chair would have an article. It's big enough, and unique in Asia, but not notable - it hasn't changed the way we live and think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree $8M is nothing great, but it's implenting a great security feature Intel sgx. Many believe Intel sgx will dramatically change the world of security. Google Intel sgx for details. Many other similar companies are on Wikipedia. My personal belief is we should apply same standard to all entries and err on side of assuming good faith. Groovy12 (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, what's your recommendation now? Will you be OK removing to-be-deleted tag from Fortanix as it has similar level of coverage as Bracket Computing, ForgeRock, Hashicorp, and many others? That allows future contributors to add new details as they unfold and help people looking for info right now. Groovy12 (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Slang" edit

Collinsdavid800 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Hello Kudpung thank you so much for reviewing my article. You sighted a slang that i do not happen to see. My article is so decent mr. Kudpung, its related to a princess and talking about culture, so i can't certainly include inappropriate language, however feel free to spot the slang for me.Collinsdavid800 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The article has many stylistic, grammatical, and orthographical issues, Please rewrite it in a formal tone that is appropriate for an English language encyclopedia. If you need help with it, consider contacting the WP:Guild of Copyeditors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hurlingham School

Hi, I have noticed that you removed my entry on the Hurlingham School and redirected it to Putney. The entry was providing a lot of information regarding the school and it included links to other entries, an infobox, categories and every piece of information was supported by appropriate references. The Putney entry where is now redirects makes no reference to Hurlingham School and I fail to see how this is useful to anyone looking for information regarding the school in Wikipedia. Could you provide me with an explanation? Ideally I strongly believe that the Hurlingham School entry should be reinstated. Antonis372 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but primary schools do not get articles on Wikipedia. 'Strongly believing' is not Wikipedia inclusion policy - just being referenced does not make it one of the most important primary schools in the country. Theoretically it should be deleted per WP:ORG, but I did you the favour of redirecting it to Putney (which you didn't even see the need of mentioning in it) so that you can add a three word note about it in the education section of the Putney article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yo Kudpung... There is no 'Education' section in the Putney article, coincidentally! — fortunavelut luna 08:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Precisely, FIM - just like there's no Putney in the Hurlingham School article ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I checked in the List of schools in the London Borough of Wandsworth and saw that several Independent primary and preparatory schools have a wikipedia page. If they did not I would have made a note in the London Borough of Wandsworth wikipedia page. Eaton House The Manor School, Finton House School, Newton Preparatory School, Thomas's London Day School are Independent primary and preparatory schools in the same borough and have a wikipedia page.Antonis372 (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well: perhaps not for long. That first article is about the Group, so that's OK- but the latter three are wholly unsatisfactory in their sourcing. Mostly primary sources, with one or two low grade PR puff pices thrown in. Thanks for bringing these to our attention, Antonis372. Happy editing! — fortunavelut luna 13:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Extremely frustrating....

....when admins and editors choose to keep stand-alone articles that are clearly WP:NOT which creates massive (useless) directories in WP such as this and this. I now have a better understanding of why we have such a backlog. I imagine many editors avoid reviewing problematic articles they don't understand and just let them sit in cyberspace. If you try to do anything about them, you have to prepare for a major time sink. If the plan is to allow them, why should we bother to concern ourselves with COI, or marketing and/or promotionalism? Perhaps I'm missing something....?? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on the two examples you cited. It would be rare to find fault with an AfD vote or nomination by DGG who has an extremely insightful understanding of Wikipedia notability. Schools are a very special case and they are not even allowed to be tagged for deletion A7. We can't undo a precedent for schools that has been set over the years by literally thousands of AfD closures. The closure of the recent RfC, which was just one of many on the topic, was not conclusive and does not and will not change the way we handle school articles; whatever criticism OUTCOMES attracts, although it is indeed wrong to use it as a guideline, it it still an accurate document. What we have over school article notability is consistency, and that goes a very long way in maintaining the principle that when it comes to interpreting our guidelines, in the best case scenario reviewers should be singing from he same hymn book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and there's one thing that would be certain to make backlogs much worse: debating in detail articles that could reasonably go either way, when it is possible to have a simple rule to deal with them. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of SCHOOLOUTCOMES no one wants to think they graduated from a "not notable" school. High schools and especially universities generate enough coverage in indepemdant sources to assure notability in nearly every case. It's just not worth fighting over the existence of school pages. Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, not to belabor the point, but I customarily agree with DGG more than I disagree. Perhaps you conflated the links? The first link is 1941_Census_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir the only one DGG voted to keep, and it's not a school, rather it's a census chart with no prose, no particular significance other than it being a census chart. To further my confusion, he responded to my question at his TP with a measure of ambiguity in that he said I was right about it not being a sustainable article by itself, and should probably be merged; the latter of which begs two questions: merged with what? And if the latter is true, why vote keep? The articles I used as examples for that AfD were not just charts rather they were actual articles that included census charts, and to compare them with a single non-notable raw chart from a primary source just didn't make any sense to me. If we allow charts only, we'll be opening the floodgates for WP to become an archive for every stand-alone census chart on the planet. Think about how many articles one editor can create with census charts dating back years to the present from each and every city and state in the US, Europe, Asia, etc.

See the discussion on my user talk for how to deal with this article. It's not as obvious as it looks. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Which discussion on your TP, DGG? The one between you and I? If so, you said (repeating what I posted above) that I was right about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1941_Census_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir not being a sustainable article by itself and that it should probably be merged; the latter of which begs two questions: merged with what? And if the latter is true and please excuse me for not understanding but why did you vote keep at the AfD which is opposite what you told me at your TP. You made no mention of merging there, or to what article it should be merged? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The second link was to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salwan_public_school which was closed as keep but DGG did not participate in that discussion. Robert McClenon listed Salwan at AfD stating: Article provides no independent evidence of notability, and is primarily promotional. I agreed and voted delete. So to be clear, are you saying WP should list every public school K-12, regardless of whether they're private schools, government funded schools or whatever simply because they're schools, with or without notability? Open another set of floodgates because those articles will become the example, and WP will indeed become a directory despite WP:NOTDIRECTORY which is policy. It's fine with me but please, as DGG stated above, we all need to be on the same page with a simple rule or the frustration will grow and editor retention will be a huge hurdle to overcome. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, both Kudpung and I think we should do exactly that, provided there is evidence of its real existence as a school. As I said just above, the reason is not because they are "notable" whatever that means, but because it's better than arguing about them. Remember, theo ther side of the long-accepted compromise is that we would generally not accept primary school articles, except for unusual cases. If we didn't have the compromise, we'd be debating these also, and probably a more or less random third of them would be kept--there would be the same number of not very important school articles, and we'd be no better off in the end; we would have gone to immense work to not get anywhere. WP claims to go by consensus, but the best consensus is often a compromise. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Atsme, what we are aiming at on Wikipedia is consistency, that's what I meant with singing from the same hymn book. School articles are rarely toxic and generally do not seriously impinge on any policies, that's why on the Founder's recommendation, we generally keep high school articles unless there is something seriously wrong with them (such as a hoax or a blatant vandalistic description of a school). Primary and middle school are redirected, which is a kind of 'soft' delete. What experienced users should be doing is to recognise artspam in all its forms for what it is and radically ensure that the articles get deleted and, if necessary, the creators blocked. No volunteer in their right mind can be happy about people making money out of our free work. That's where we should be focusing our efforts if we chose to work in New Page Reviewing or voting/closing AfD. DGG and I have specialised in a couple of topic areas for years, and while we don't create the policies or the guidelines, we believe we interpret them as they were intended, and generally it works well in maintaining the consistency.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Atsme - Maybe I have missed something. I am not entirely what the issue is. I nominated a school article for deletion. I will comment that when I nominated the article, it was really cruddy. It has improved. However, to summarize, I nominated an article for deletion, and the article was kept. I was in the minority. Should I be annoyed about that, or should I just recognize that sometimes I am in the minority on deletion? I don't share your (Atsme's) extreme frustration. It doesn't frustrate me that some of my AFD's result in deletion, and some of them result in cruddy articles becoming mediocre articles. Maybe you and I have different deletion philosophies. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll just add that I don't 'win' all my deletion nominations either. Most of them, for sure, but there are some that are kept purely on the majority of 'keep' votes by people who don't actually understand our guidelines and just want all garage bands and spam kept, some because I was just wrong, and some where as Robert points out, were significantly improved during the discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

None of us are totally successful at deletion noms. This tool can show you how close you or any editor matches consensus. [1] Even experienced Admins don't know all the policies. I corrected one just the other day on which was an applicable CSD. I've studied a lot of law and I find Wikipedia policy, practice and precedent is very much like the law - complex, a mix of code and precedent based, logical except when it is not, and often contradicts itself. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

My frustration appears to have been misunderstood, so I'll try to clarify. It's not about winning or losing at AfD. It's about quality and protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia by keeping out poorly written articles and promotional material. Robert McClenon, Kudpung, DGG regardless of notability, all one has to do is read Salwan_Public_School and draw their own conclusion as to whether it should be in mainspace as an example of the quality WP represents. Perhaps I'm expecting too much by wanting article creators to contribute well-written, quality articles that pass notability and other PAGs. When they don't, I may also be expecting too much by wanting AfC and NPP to not allow them into mainspace until they meet WP standards. Are these issues ACTRIAL will address, or are my concerns not what others consider to be an issue? One of the "keeps" at AfD stated: If it's promotional, that's an editing matter. SOFIXIT. Based on empirical evidence, that particular comment may well represent the prevailing opinion. And therein lies the crux of the problem - a growing dependence on volunteers to edit promotional pieces so they appear encyclopedic. SOFIXIT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, AfD is not a perfect process. It is flawed by the very fact that probably the majority of !voters are not especially aware of all our policies and guidelines, not to mention the many exceptions, on top of which many participants in these discussions vote from emotion rather than pragmatically. I have been the coordinator of WP:WPSC for many years since the days when Wikipedia only had a few hundred school articles, and long before I was even an admin. I have all school articles on a special watchlist (that's one of the reasons why today my main watchlist is over 26,000 pages) and I see them all and I am automatically informed of any PRODS, AFD, CSD, and redirects. This does not mean however, that I defend the retention of every school article - I have deleted many.

I agree that a lot of the newer school articles that arrive nowadays - perhaps most of them - come from regions that are not strictly English language dominated and may add little value to the English Wikipedia. However, to maintain the consistency of approach that DGG and I and others try to uphold, not only for schools, but for all kinds of articles, we must treat all school articles in the same manner. I share your anticipation nevertheless, that ACTRIAL will also stem the tide of school articles that are generally below a standard that one would expect for a serious work of reference such as Wikipedia. We in no way belittle your excellent initiatives, and your help and support for all matters concerning New Page Review are highly regarded and very much appreciated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung, your words are encouraging, your patience exemplary. I, on the other hand, am a lifelong work in progress with plans to never stop learning, adapting and appreciating those who are far more knowledgeable than I. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Long Reply to Atsme

I will try to reply to your comments. It isn’t clear whether your frustration is at Wikipedia administrators who adjudicate speedy tags and close AFDs, or at Wikipedia editors. However, the issues that you raise appear to have to do with attitudes of the editorial community. It appears that you have more restrictive ideas about what should be kept than most editors. That is, you would be characterized as a deletionist. Maybe your frustration is that you want other editors to agree with your deletionist viewpoint. Maybe I misunderstand.

Atsme wrote:

One of the "keeps" at AfD stated: If it's promotional, that's an editing matter. SOFIXIT. 

I agree with your annoyance there, but that statement is an accurate representation of policy. Promotional nature is handled in what I see as a split way. On the one hand, a page that is primarily spam is speedy-deleted under WP:G11. However, once a page clears the G11 barrier, promotional content is considered fixable, and is not a factor in AFD. I disagree, but we (Atsme and I) are in the minority. Unfortunately, once a page clears G11 and A7, promotional content is not a deletion factor for the page. What is permitted is simply to delete the promotional content. If that stubbifies the page, maybe it illustrates that it should have been G11 or A7.

Atsme wrote:

Perhaps I'm expecting too much by wanting article creators to contribute well-written, quality articles that pass notability and other PAGs. 

Yes. You are expecting too much. Not everyone can contribute well-written, quality articles. You really appear to be asking for a different free-content encyclopedia. Wikipedia achieves well-written quality articles by gradual improvement, and some of our articles never will be quality well-written articles. I don’t know whether we have one million articles of crud or two million articles of crud, but if we excluded all new articles because they were crud, we would have a lot fewer quality articles, because some of them don’t start as quality well-written articles, and we don’t delete articles for not being well-written. I think we should delete them for having promotional content, but I am in the minority.

Atsme: Schools have long been an area of honest disagreement. You, Atsme, apparently feel strongly about them, that we need to keep the flood of school spam out of the encyclopedia. I see where you are coming from, but I partly disagree. In any case, I would advise you to recognize that you are in the minority. It appears that the Wikipedia community has been over and over this issue about schools and still doesn’t get consensus.

Atsme wrote:

When they don't, I may also be expecting too much by wanting AfC and NPP to not allow them into mainspace until they meet WP standards. Are these issues ACTRIAL will address, or are my concerns not what others consider to be an issue? 

Yes, you are expecting too much, as I noted above. Articles are kept out of Wikipedia for not meeting notability, but not for lack of quality. Quality is incrementally improved. In my expectation, ACTRIAL will improve things, not by excluding cruddy articles as such, but by excluding a lot of cruddy editors, most of the clueless one-and-done contributors, and many of the first-time promotional editors. ACTRIAL will improve things, not by excluding cruddy articles, but by excluding many cruddy editors.

Mostly I disagreed, but I will largely agree with Atsme’s conclusion. Atsme wrote:

And therein lies the crux of the problem - a growing dependence on volunteers to edit promotional pieces so they appear encyclopedic. SOFIXIT.  

Kudpung wrote:

What experienced users should be doing is to recognise artspam in all its forms for what it is and radically ensure that the articles get deleted and, if necessary, the creators blocked. No volunteer in their right mind can be happy about people making money out of our free work. 

The difference appears to be in degrees of attitudes toward what is spam that needs deleting, and what can be fixed. ACTRIAL won’t address article content directly, but it will exclude a lot of cruddy article creators, and give us time to figure out a more consistent approach to the remaining crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

my own attitude to spam has changed over the years, both in response to the greatly increased attempts at promotional use of WP (inevitable because of our increased influence), and in response to my increased realization of the harm that it does. (I would not be surprised if some other inclusionist editors had similarly changed views). For a borderline notable article, I do think that the promotional nature of the article should be taken into account when considering deletion. Like many of my views about WP, this is based on practical, not fundamental, considerations--there is so much to fix, that there is no point spending the limited time of competent editors on the most borderline of the articles).

In addition,promotional by itself can be a good argument at AfD. A fundamentally promotional article that is not altogether promotional is not really a candidate for speedy deletion by G11, because judgment is required about the extent & significance of the promotional intent and content, and this is better made by the community as a whole than by just 2 editors. For such articles, I argue at AfD that NOT ADVOCACY is a fundamental policy, and anything judged to be advocacy should be removed altogether. Obviously people will differ in individual cases, and I do not pretend that my judgment is anything like infallible--indeed my AfD record is not among the very most successful, because I concentrate on the instances that could reasonably go either way; the only way to get a perfect record there is to do only the obvious, and the more experienced one is, the greater the obligation to deal with the difficult decisions. As Robert highlighted just above, attitudes vary--but I do not think we will ever be really consistent on matters of judgment. We never have been. Our method of determining consensus is not adapted to consistency.

As for ACCTRIAL I expect rather less than Kudpung & Robert; i think about half the people it is intended to block will decide to simply meet the minimum requirements and enter it again, and therefore the gain will be about 5 to 10%. Even this may be matched by a greater use of AfC, which is just as burdensome. But it is certainly worth the trial. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The trade off as I see it DGG, is that with ACTRIAL there will be significantly fewer new articles to patrol (because about 80% of new articles from new users articles are not kept), while there will be a slight increase of submissions at AfC, meaning that on the deployment of available workforce, the idea of merging the two processes becomes a strong reality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

we've had to put off the merge while straightening out the individual processes. I am beginning to thing it would be more practical to start over with a merged process. But I'm reluctant to start the necessary arguments, which will undoubtedly take a year or two. I sill have the bias to concentrate on individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Next Generation - Mark For Deletion

Hello,

I hope this message finds you well.

I saw you have marked the page for Next Generation for deletion. I would like you to reconsider it for following reasons

Next Generation aims to educate their readers about the current conflicts around women and children across their world and enable them to help and connect with those who have been affected, such as famine, war or abuses. Next Generation also acts as media to empower women and children who had gone through abuses and whose rights for education have been denied by sharing their stories to the world.

We are the team of Next Generation are currently working on updating the pages. we hope that this page won't be deleted because this article is not meant as advertising but it will help to reach out to other people who are looking for help, or simply a way to find and boost their confidence, especially women who had gone through abuses as this page will direct them to the resources they need.

Secondly, our aims have also been to be able to connect our readers to people who are in the position to help them wherever they are. I hope you will reconsider deleting this page.

I'm also new to wikipedia, I would really appreciate if you can guide me through submitting a more fitting article such as citing sources as references as I'm finding it quite difficult.

Thank you Sares Founder of Next Generation Magazine

Saresselva (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Saresselva - Please read the conflict of interest policy. It appears that you are asking to use Wikipedia to promote your web site. Wikipedia requires independent coverage by reliable sources as condition for its coverage. I suggest that you ask for further guidance at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Sares, with this very claim: ...but it will help to reach out to other people who are looking for help, or simply a way to find and boost their confidence, especially women who had gone through abuses as this page will direct them to the resources they need, your are promoting your organisation. If it does not meet our criteria for notability such as WP:GNG and WP:ORG, even though it may have a very noble mission it will not be considered sufficiently significant for an article in Wikipedia. Please also follow up on the links that Robert McClenon has kindly provided above. You'll also find the people at The Teahouse very helpful and able to explain those of our policies that might be a bit vague or appear to be unusual.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Many well-meaning (and some not-so-well-meaning) editors do not understand just how strict Wikipedia's policy on promotion is. It is common for an editor to write that they are not trying to use Wikipedia to advertising, but only to "reach out" or "get the word out". Maybe Wikipedia hasn't done a good enough job of "getting the word out" that it cannot and will not be used as the means to "reach out" or "get the word out". Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I will comment, looking back and up to the comments of User:Atsme, that maybe we really should be more consistent in being completely intolerant of articles that contain promotional content, rather than using the phrase SOFIXIT. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

SOFIXIT is basically WP:BOGOF with which I assume Atsme is not yet familiar. IMO, promotion in any shape of form is not to be tolerated, including from non-profits who are expecting to receive donated funds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

SOFIXIT and WP:BOGOF

User:Kudpung - I don't entirely understand your comment, at least why you say that maybe Atsme is not familiar with WP:BOGOF. SOFIXIT is Be Bold, and is a valid reply to complaints that an article needs an improvement, such as a lede rewrite or having the sections rearranged. Having read WP:BOGOF, I will say, first, that it is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and, second, that it is ambiguous. It doesn't clearly state that volunteer editors shouldn't allow the spammer to buy one and get a better one free. Also, Atsme wasn't saying that editors should fix it. Atsme was frustrated that somewhat spammy articles are kept, because SOFIXIT, that is, remove the spam, is cited as a reason to keep rather than delete. I just verified that Deletion Reason 4 is advertising or promotion. I think that the AFD community, the editors who !vote on AFDs, largely have a mindset that lack of notability is the only balancing test reason for deletion when an article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. The idea that lack of notability is the primary reason for contested deletion, that is, deletion at AFD, was appropriate in the past when the English Wikipedia was smaller and less misused, and when an argument could be made that any notable subject required a stub article even if it was a cruddy spammy stub. However, I don't see BOGOF as being a clear argument for deleting spam anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There are several ways of interpreting BOGOF. Of course it's an essay and Widefox never intended it to be used as anything other than an exposé of the spammer mindset 'get it in Wikipedia and the naïve keepists will work for free for us'. It's possibly a bit long for what it tries to portray, but if the links are followed and also given due consideration, then it is very accurate and should not be dismissed just because it's an opinion piece. It should make editors think twice about spending their free time helping others earn money out of Wikipedia and if it achieves that goal, then it's another small step in ensuring that Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia and does not become another LinkedIn. Notability is most certainly not the only reason why an article should be protected from deletion. Essay or not, BOGOF should be required reading for New Page Patrollers and Reviewers; they can make their own minds up how they interpret it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)i

• One of the problems with spam/promotionalism is how to define it. Is simply having an article on one of the most prominent websites in the world when you are a tech startup that is likely to go bankrupt within the year an advertisement? I'd argue yes, even if written neutrally. Even before I became active again last year, anytime I saw paid advertising for a company that I thought might be interesting, I would immediately look it up on Wikipedia to see what they did. If they didn't have a Wikipedia article, I assumed that they weren't a legitimate company. That might not be fair, but it was how I thought and I think it is likely true that many other people feel that way.
  I think this comment at a recent AfD is one of the better summations of my views in this regard. An advertisement can be neutrally written and still be an advertisement. The question is the intent and the use. We obviously can't always tell intent, but when someone declares it or it is exceedingly obvious based on behavior, we should apply WP:NOT, a policy that forms the other half of the notability guideline. While I get the frustration many have with the "AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and the subject of the article is featured in their local yellow pages!"-style keep !votes that can pop up, I still believe that the easiest solution is simply to keep pointing out at AfDs that GNG is not in itself a reason to keep something and is only a part of a larger guideline that includes more stringent policies. Keep saying it and linking to WP:N instead of GNG and eventually enough people will read the entire guideline to get it is a lot more nuanced than it has been made out to be. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Exactly Robert - and a good example is this one. Talk about tripping editors...my, my. I think DGG nailed it with his explanation. I removed much of the promo material, but it was readded, the latter of which caused me to change my position from keep to strong delete because at that point, it became obvious that the purpose of that BLP was promotional. That's where it gets tricky - he was notable on one level, but the promotional material buried it. It will be interesting to see the final outcome. Kudz, you are correct about me not knowing about BOGOF, but I know now. 👍🏻 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw that comment by Justlettersandnumbers and thought at the time already how relevant it is. I'm just noting here that I have also recently had a long discussion with DESiegel where we quite strongly debated at some length our differences of opinion on notability vs promotion. This older AfD vote of mine from 2015 has now bcome a boilerplate I use at many AfD:

Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages. (...) Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• The biggest single problem with promotion is intent. However clean and notable and hard to delete a promotional piece might be, it's still promotional and intentional, but intention is very hard to prove - in the same way that under English law many murderers get away with manslaughter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In my view, intention should be largely irrelevant to the issue of whether something is deleted (or rewritten) as promotional. The text should stand alone. If it is a factual description, supported (or supportable for non-controversial statements) by reliable sources, and if notability is established for the topic overall, and if there is no bias caused by cherry-picking selective facts, telling only one side of a story, then any possible promotional intent should be ignored. As you say, it is impossible to prove anyway. And if the result is a properly objective, neutral article, why should anyone care what the intent of the editor or any creator was or is? Promotion should be defined and demonstrated by the effect of the text, not by the presumed intent of the poster/editor. A sincere but clueless editor may create a highly promotional article without intending to -- do we leave this in place because of the sincerity of the editor? No! Conversely a very skilled promoter may realize that the best way to promote a subject is to create exactly the same article that the ideal unbiased wikipedian would. Do we delete such a thing? No! Concerning ourselves with effect rather than intent will avoid our trying to read minds, and result in better articles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

What I was inferring above, David, was not that we should try to read minds - far from it, blatantly intentional promotion is , well, blatantly obvious. The problem is in making that intention stick in court (but as OrangeMoody has proven, it can be done). Not working in our favour is our well intended, but much abused policy of always assuming good faith. You and I will always agree to differ; I just don't think our volunteers should be doing unpaid work for sleazy PR merchants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

I respect your good intent here as I hope you respect mine. I think that if you are having to prove intentions, then you are already far along the wrong track. If you can't prove something promotional from the text without discussing intent, then it isn't, for any practical purpose, promotional. I don't think that in improving an article, even one that may have been created with promotional intent, I am doing unpaid work for sleazy PR merchants.

By the way, thank you for the link to WP:BOGOF in the section title -- i hadn't seen that essay before. I have now posted on its talk page in opposition to its concept.

I won't try at further length to convince you to adopt my views; I doubt it is possible. But I hope that others who follow your page may be given cause to think. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Intent is hard to judge, but can be deduced from both the content and the behavior. Press agents write press releases. Company spokesperson writes what their bosses tell them to write. Paid editors write what they think will please the client. If they are skilled, they write what they think will get into Wikipedia. If they are really skilled and experienced, and the subject has actually done important things and good sources have been written about them, they can even manage to write something that will actually be acceptable. That last case is quite rare, but if they also follow the terms of use, I see no reason for rejecting it despite the intent. But in all the other cases, the intent can help us decide whether to put effort into the article. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC) .

DGG, I think you hit the nail on the head here, as you often do. The question of inclusion into Wikipedia is a balancing act, with whether an article is promotional being one component. The articles we are getting all worked up about here are essentially the ones that are borderline: promotional ones that are clearly not notable will be deleted via AfD or CSD A7. Articles that are over the top promotional get G11. The ones that are borderline notable and written by a skilled PR person are the ones that waste editor time at AfD. I think there is a strong case to be made that including them does harm the encyclopedia because they won't likely be maintained since they are of questionable significance, and that harms the encyclopedia, but I can see the other side. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. BOGOF could be split in two and slimmed (an essay for each faction) . Paid (and promo) editing is a systemic bias (both types of articles, and content type). Editors should be made aware they have a choice when dealing with it, which has consequences:

1. SOFIXIT / AFDISNOTCLEANUP: spend finite resources rescuing promo articles, hazard: subsidising the paid editor market, outcome: a vicious circle
2. BOGOF / TNT / "Kindness kills": Delete and free up finite resources, raising the bar for the bias, outcome: lack of feelgood for volunteer mopping

This issue with the dichotomy is that without consensus of how to handle promo bias, both editor factions may waste resources and goodwill defending their diametrically opposed positions. DES even if the article content is free from promo, not addressing the bias may be a vicious circle. BOGOF intends to give editors awareness. If kindness kills, I'd rather BOGOF delete. I suspect (but don't know) that editors who've dealt with a lot of promo and COI here would favour easier ways of fixing it. Widefox; talk 23:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Widefox, DGG, I feel that SOFIXIT has the potential to become a virtuous cycle instead. i wrote about this at WT:BOGOF, and perhaps that is a batter place for any extended discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

DES well, it's volunteering. Personal choice. The hazard being if we subsidise the market, we increase the systemic bias. There should be consensus for raising the bar for promotion. I've just read the interesting opinions at Wikipedia talk:Buy one, get one free i.e. "dyke made of a type of sand", and "Yelp". I suppose BOGOF is just moral hazard? Widefox; talk 23:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving to draft

So here's a question - when an article leaves AfC & ends-up in the queue at NPP, and the reviewer determines the article has issues that make it unacceptable for mainspace (indexing) because more work is needed (tone down promotionalism, or it's poorly written, poorly sourced, etc.) what is wrong with simply userfying or moving the article to draft space where it can be improved (with help from the reviewer)? Are we required to AfD those articles first, or can we userfy or draft space them first, and then if the article creator is uncooperative, we can try AfD? Isn't that basically what ACTRIAL proposes to do without the middle steps? Yes or no? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thagt is a very interesting question, Atsme. The current consensus is not entiely clear on the point. You are assumign that the article creator would not agree to draftifcation? Because with agreement, this is clearly OK. Or with some sort of consensus, perhaps on the article talk page rather than at an AfD, it is clearly OK, as I understand things. Done unilaterally, there is at least some consensus that this is not OK, but not a really clear one. Furthermore, you wrote when an article leaves AfC. That presumes that an AfC reviewer approved it, correct? or are you speaking of a unilateral move by the draft creator? If an afc reviewer approved it, that should be taken into account, I would think. I think we need a clearer consensus on this issue. There is a current discussion at WT:CSD, but that may not be the bet place for it. Personally, I often move articles tagged for speedy deletion to draft, if the alternative is to delete them, but i think that they might be fixed. But that is a bit different from this being done by the NPPer, it seems to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel, following is an example of what I'm referring to: see the string of AfC denials yet the article made it into mainspace. In the end it was redirected Talk:Westbury_Road_Entertainment but getting that done was a major time sink. Promoters/paid editors/publicists/company reps etc. are not easily deterred. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

and of course the way to stop this is to MfD. We should be using it more. "unlikely to ever be accepted in main space" is a good reason. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ready for another long reply? Put the kettle on, draw up a chair. In a perfect world, Atsme, an article moved to mainspace by an AfC reviewer should not have any issues that would result in a claim for deletion. Further development and improvement, yes, but not deletion. The absolute core purpose of AfC is to triage articles that have a good chance of surviving AfD and articles that would almost certainly be deleted.

The problem is however, that the general standard of reviewing at AfC is not good enough (don't ask me here to explain why we know this), so some articles may get tagged for PROD, CSD, or AfD - because with the exception of accredited New Page Reviewers, anyone and his dog can tag pages with no experience whatsoever. This is because a small but vociferous faction of users insisted that 'The encyclopedia anyone can edit' also means 'The encyclopedia where anyone can do back office actions, get them horribly wrong, lose new users, and allow spam and inappropriate articles into mainspace'. I know that sounds ludicrous, but that's what happened.

Those instructions for AfC reviewers are nearly as complex as the instructions for new page reviewers at WP:NPP, which makes a very good argument for the merge of AfC and NPP that DGG and I have been discussing for a couple of years. The next problem is the software, but the people in DannyH (WMF)'s department at the Wikimenidia foundation don't understand these issues and when wanting to help, often looking at or addressing the issues from the wrong angle. They only see the 100s of lines of coding work it would entail; understanding Communication studies, a very different discipline, was probably not their major at university and that's why I think they change the subject when I start talking about human reaction/interaction to visual stimuli. But that's what the WMF largely is and basically what its core mission should be: a server farm and MediaWiki code writers.

All we can do is keep chipping away at as many dubious articles as possible in order to reinforce the very real need for 1) better control of new articles (i.e. qualified personnel), 2) properly informing new users what kind of articles they can write and what we do not accept, 3) stopping the flow of rubbish and spam by making all new user either a) wait 4 days and 10 edits before they can create an article in mainspace or b) use the Wizard and go through AfC.

I make a lot of comments that not everyone agrees with, but as far as ACTRIAL was concerned, we obtained a huge consensus; most of the collaborators from that era have moved on, but now we have strong support from people like MrX, Robert McClenon, MER-C, and TonyBallioni, Ritchie333 (whose starement is compelling), to name but a few, including even MusikAnimal who rides precariously astride his split allegiances - because he understands both computer code and communication - a rare animal indeed.

At lease DESiegel and I agree (in principle) on moving articles to draft; at least those that are totally unfit for mainspace but which do have potential for it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudz, thank you for taking the time to explain. In addition to the issues we're dealing with re: COI and paid editing, we have to deal with this crap, too. I agree with you & DGG about combining AfC & NPR as the two are doing very much the same work. The anyone can edit risks are getting the best of us considering the small percentage of editors doing the work, including admins (1256), AfC (157), & NPP (451) reviewers, compared to the numbers of articles (5,436,506) and pages (42,448,460) that are growing at an unsustainable rate of development, and well...I just hope WMF gives serious consideration to funding the programs you & DGG have suggested. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The core mission of the WMF is much more than " a server farm and MediaWiki code writers." It includes caretaking for the WP movement in general: maintaining the standard of NPOV and the principle of open editing--and, these days especially, helping defend the even defend the even more important and basic freedoms of speech and communication, which will increasing include protecting the community of editors. In order to do this effectively, it needs to maintain its prestige and its general significance to the public. Thee will always be non-congruities between the different parts of a complex community, and we should not let them distract us from the goals. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedily Deletion of BIKE BLAZER page, hope you'll HELP me :)

Mohitadatta (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Greetings :) Kudpung

Hope you're doing fine. I'll straight get to the point.

• A New Delhi based Startup CYTON MV pvt ltd has INVENTED & PATENTED a unique Motorbike covering Device, which lets the rider cover the bike anytime & place as the Device is permanently fixed on the Leg guard of bike. I purchased this product for my husband a few months back it it really is a Blessing for him :)

I've been using Wikipedia since ages now! (literally) and BIKE BLAZER looked alike a great opportunity to me to highlight the INVENTION and thus created a page on Wikipedia.

I did some some R&D to collect some relevant references & could get my hands on their Articles, Interviews in INDIAN NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS Like THE HINDU, DAINIK BHASKAR, NAVODYA TIMES, RASHTRIYA SAHARA and their Co-Founder (Keshav's) INTERVIEW in INDIA TV (video on Youtube) and their Official Website www.BikeBlazer.in

I believe the above information should've been considered notable but as it. I do have NEWSPAPER CLIPPING with me. But not able to upload them.

Am attaching online available link pls see it :) http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/Breaking-new-ground/article16687822.ece

Here, link for NAvodaya times Epaper. http://epaper.navodayatimes.in//c/15375916

Hope this will HELP :)Mohitadatta (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Thank youMohitadatta (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC) User:Mohitadatta - I haven't read the page that was deleted, but the description of it sounds like an advertisement. Wikipedia isn't in the business of advertising products, even if they are great inventions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Zeiss Batis Distagon T* 2.8/18mm, Kudpung.

Unfortunately Usernamekiran has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I am sorry to do this Kudpung sir. But the subject fails WP:GNG, but passes WP:MILL, and WP:ENN.

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

—usernamekiran(talk) 13:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries - the article is at AfD where it belongs and will probably be deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing Immu 01 from Afc Participants

Why was my username removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants?? I meet all the criterias for my name to be on that list. Can you please give the reason for removing? You can find my details here https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=immu+01&project=en.wikipedia.org i've been on wikipedia for almost 3 years (Requirement is 90 days) I've made 507 live edits (Requirement is 500 edits) Immu 01 13:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The requirement is also that you know what you are doing and you have only made 196 edits to mainspace. Please see the many comments on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC name deletion

I recently saw that you have deleted my name from the AfC participants group, citing that I "[do] not meet basic requirements." I have been on Wikipedia for 97 days, and as of this post, made 560 live edits. I believe I have a thorough understanding of the AfC process, and I would like to know why my name was removed. --alphalfalfa^(talk) 05:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The requirement is also that you know what you are doing and you have only made 399 edits to mainspace. Please see the comments on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What about the comments on my talk page? alphalfalfa^(talk) 19:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Read them please. Or is it really so difficult to understand why AfC is not appropriate for you at this time? In the meantime, there are plenty of other, easier clean up tasks you could be helping with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

All of the pages of mine that were nominated for deletion were kept. I don't see how AfC isn't appropriate for me. Care to explain what I've done wrong? alphalfalfa^(talk) 00:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, see the messages on your talk page including the wrongly processed AfC. If you can't already see what is wrong with it, then that is sufficient reason, apart from the number of edits that you haven't reached yet, to assume that you are not yet competent with the AfC tools. We'll look again when you have made the required number of edits. Unfortunately, we don't make any exceptions to these rules. I am however very curious to know why being an AfC reviewer is so important to you when you don't even have any of the user rights that are easier to obtain and with which you would gain some valuable experience. 01:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Rodrigo Tavares deletion

Hi, you have deleted the entry Rodrigo Tavares, but I think you would be benefited by a bit of background. The page has deleted before because the editor spotted the repetition of sentences from a Granito Partners website. After editing the text further, we have moved away from that site. As you can see in the latest copyright report provided by Wikipedia, the new version found 0 matches. I would appreciate if you could revisit your decison.

I do not process anonymous messages. Who is 'we'? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion page

scientistpraveenn is exist, i can prove this. Please follow below the link https://twitter.com/Scientist096 https://www.instagram.com/scientistpraveenn/?hl=en https://plus.google.com/+PraveenBhalaviscientist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientistpraveennn (talk • contribs) 12:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't delete the page

I think the Wikipedia Team does not need to delete the page "Asep Muhammad Hidir". This is real! He is a translator in Indonesia. She helped translate from English to Indonesian as well as Hindi to Bahasa Indonesia. He has been used to translate series / movies on almost all private TVs in Indonesia that feature series / movies (especially India). In addition, he is also a volunteer translator in social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisyuliawati (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Need help moving log of page I created and you deleted to my

Hi K, this is what I found: 12:35, 8 July 2017 Kudpung (talk | contribs) deleted page Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RemedyAndReparation.aspx) I can't find the log. Can you help move it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SvenAERTS/Basic_Principles_and_Guidelines_on_the_Right_to_a_Remedy_and_Reparation PS Are you sure you want to delete it and not make it appear? This international law on Human Rights is often referred to in other wikipedia articles. That's why I started to make an article about it. It is certainly just a kickstart, but was useful with interlinks and categories to attract other people to it. It is such a cornerstone but not known with organisations and people who need it most. So please put it back. It was not just a copy-paste, there was a lot more in it and paragraphs I added. We are a team preparing a summer workshop on Global Goal 16: Peace and Justice - on the topic of this law. Please put it back. Sincerely, Sven AERTS - Judge at the Court Brussels Capital Region SvenAERTS (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The log reads: 19:35, July 8, 2017 Kudpung (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RemedyAndReparation.aspx) With two admins reaching the same conclusion, you can rest fairly assured that the article was unsuitable for inclusion. Diannaa is a highly experienced admin and is rarely wrong. My check revealed that text was taken verbatim from a web page that is marked '© OHCHR 1996-2017', so it can't be restored to your user space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung @ Diannaa Is my draft still somewhere recoverable? I used replicated the chapters in the OHCHR's replication of the UN General Assembly conclusions. That is not property of the OHCR. The I added quite a lot of my own material and quotes from other sites and had put quite a lot of work in it. I find it extremely rude to completely delete it. I'm at +500 wikipedia contribution. You could at least given me a chance to move it to my own pages. --SvenAERTS (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

SvenAERTS, if you want anything from us, I suggest you avoid getting personal, remember that we are just volunteers doing the job we were elected for. If Diannaa has no objections , I'll mail you a copy of what you wrote, but I can't infringe on copyright laws by posting it anywhere on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung is correct, we can't host copyright material anywhere on this wiki, not even in sandboxes or drafts. Note the United Nations materials are Not in the public domain and cannot be reproduced here. I have no objection to you receiving a copy of the deleted article by email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

my email is SvenAERTS228 at gmail dot com SvenAERTS (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

question about my deleted article

Hi, Kudpung!

I posted an article about a company called iTutor and wanted to explain why I didn't think it was advertising and to ask your advice on fixing it. Here in the US, the issue of access to good education is a very hot one, as I'm sure you know. When I came across information about this company from an old friend of mine in publishMakrudying, I thought, "This is cool." They make it possible for sick kids, disabled kids, and others who might be home-bound to have access to state-accredited teachers so they can keep up with their class.

So how can I fix it so that it doesn't come across like an ad, which is not what it's supposed to be?

Thank you! Makrudy (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, because I'm just about as geographically far from America as one can get, but as a retiree from a long career teaching in faculties of education, I also have a fairly broad overview of cloud-based teaching. Indeed , I have been involved in the development in some of them. However, a quick peek at the deleted material reaffirms that even if it was not your intention, the article is unfortunately blatantly promotional in that it affords web exposure to an organisation having a commercial goal inoffering a service. Add to that it doesn't meet our criteria for companies and organisations anyway. Sorry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Review....

What's your thoughts about List of UK Rock & Metal Singles Chart number ones of 1988 and In Kind Exchange?Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

On the first one I don't think anything. By 1988 I was far to old for that kind of music. But it could do with some sources - do NME and Melody Maker still exist? On the second one and looking at his other articles, they have all the hallmarks of a commissioned work, but of course there's no proof. You'll have to go through all those refs and check them out. Drag the Russian ones into Google Translate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Will be doing a detailed analysis on the second one.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Page movers

Hello Kudpung! How are you? Hope everything going good there. Thanks for the "Page movers" rights. Remember me? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung

Hi Kudpung!

I saw that you have contested our post for "Furian" in UK bands. I understand that you have your reasons but I have a more personal plea with this one I suppose. You are correct in saying that we have never charted but we have featured on Kerrang radio (which I can provide proof for) and have been established as both a registered business and a band and are registered with PRS as an artist (the global royalties agency). By that merit we are surely a band that could be entered.

I completely understand that you are playing by the rules and don't wish to approach from any other angle than, we could really use the traffic that this wiki entry can provide (due to our relation to the chronicles of riddick searches). Being a band is a very tough game to play and we need every little bit of help that we can get in directing people to our page. I ask kindly that we work to fix this instead of denying it. Would love to hear your feedback, ears are completely open. I am new to wikipedia and I'm positive that you've identified that straight away. But I would rather be helped than denied.

Kind regards,

Dan Martin-Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyarRecords (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @PyarRecords: Yo Dan please see WP:PROMO for why effectively everything you have just written there is not going to happen  :) Further, see our rather stringent notability guidelines on the criteria Wikipedia demands for inclusion, which requires that your gruppe have extensive and persistent coverage form independent, third-party reliable sources. Could I also suggest that you consider changing your username too? Atm it appears that your username may 'represent the name of a company [or] group' and 'imply the likelihood of shared use are not permitted. This means that... Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted. Please see here for how to commence this process. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 13:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

By saying: 'we could really use the traffic that this wiki entry can provide' you , as the band's label or agent, are clearly admitting to using this encyclopedia for promotional purposes. Sorry, but that is absolutely not allowed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, KP, for some reason I didn't get an edit conflict when I posted, so didn't realise you'd already replied. Sorry about that. — fortunavelut luna 13:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you for your response. This is down to my utter naivety in using Wikipedia (I am a first time user) and I appreciate all sides of the discussion. I know that you have a job to do. Keep up the good work and sorry that we can't resolve this. I appreciate your time. For the record I am the singer/guitarist of the band. I am directly a part of Furian and can speak on their behalf. - Dan PyarRecords (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In that case, if you read nothing else, try WP:COI before any further contributions. And, I don't mean to be unfriendly, but your username is probably a breach of our policies, too! Wikipedia can be a tricky place for newbies. If you'd like some help, you can ask me by clicking here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It's definitely a lot more tricky than I first thought. But I'm not one to argue where I know I'm out of my depth. I'm glad this place is policed. I just thought that the validity of the band would be ok on google search and I should know better. I did not expect wiki to function as an old encyclopedia does fundamentally but again I understand why. I appreciate everyone's input. It's very helpful thank you. PyarRecords (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Expired PROD

Hi. You seem to have deleted an expired PROD for an article that I had already deprodded. ([2]). I presume this was an error. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller:, probably an edit conflict or it was in my browser cache. Restored. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I was figuring a muckup with WP:PRODSUM. Whatever it was, thanks for restoring. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Heatherwood Luxury Rentals

Please help me learn more about what is acceptable and what is not.

I also would like to see a record of my page content so that I may be able to improve on it's content and design it approcpriate for publication.

If at all possible please contact me back on how I can improve and see the page again.

Thank you! User: Vanderbilt58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderbilt58 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it will ever meet Wikipedia criteria. The company is not as notable as one might think, even ifit has an interesting history, and until it is (with a lot of dedicated press in quality national newspapers and Bloomberg) it will be little more than a basic company listing and hence promotional - which Wikipedia is not for. See WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Heatherwood Luxury Rentals

Is it possible to show me my content again so that I may use it for reference

Thank You Vanderbilt58 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)vanderbilt58

I have mailed you a copy. One of the problems is the glaring spammy company name. I don't see a worarounfd for that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that.

Unfortunately, Heatherwood Luxury Rentals is our company name I guess there is no workaround for that ( unless you have an idea that you can share)

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback. Vanderbilt58 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)vanderbilt58

deleted page of Dr. Andreas Löschel

I would like to contest the deletion of the above page and would like to request the restoration of the page. The copyright infringement is without basis. When you notified me of the notice of speedy deletion, I was in the process of adding citations and references. ALso, there is no copyright infringement when the person himself knows about it. It is not plagiarism when I am reproducing information that cannot be paraphrased because career, education, and publications CANNOT BE PARAPHRASED as they are the actual accomplishment of Andreas Loschel. When I saved the changes, I was surprised to learn that it has been deleted. I think your overzealousness to delete a page without giving ample time for the creator of the page to amend the page is unfair and arbitrary. I only created the page today and was working on it for hours. I noted that when creators are given the notice for deletion, we are given 7 days to make the correction. I am extremely frustrated as I was working on it for hours! It is really inconsiderate and unfair to delete the page without giving me ample time to make the corrections.

I hope for your kind cooperation. Allyadigue (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was not involved in the deletion of an article you had written. I did not notify you of a speedy deletion. You created the page in article space without any references and I flagged it requesting sources, giving you 7 days to add them. Admin Sphilbrick flagged it for deletion as a copyright infringement, and it was deleted by admin De728631. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I responded at editors talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I Really Need your Help in Becoming a Better WikipedianOlusegun Ajakaiye (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

At first i felt discouraged seeing my post was deleted but i had to brace myself up in learning the "how to" in becoming an excellent editor/publisher on Wikipedia. My post was deleted based on conformity to Wikipedia guidelines and i would appreciate your mentoring/guide towards making my post an outstanding one. i look forward to your reply. Many Thanks. Olusegun Ajakaiye (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

At what point do we...

...stop the advocacy? Just one instance of repeated problems which stem from a questionable article and the organization's founder. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, the links I provided above weren't the best for clarity, so I'll try again...no declaration....also see the relevant comments here here and here, which led to my reviewing Visual_Collaborative and its TP where I found proposed merges. I am now of the mind to AfD that article but want your thoughts first. My comments at the draft and talk pages explain why I think it's not notable and purely promotional but as you've alluded to in other COI discussions, those who benefit by promo articles will argue to keep them. I did a simple Google search for Visual Collaborative which produced 3 sites: the WP site, its own website, and Twitter. Another problem with such articles is the amount of time it takes when a reviewer lands on the first article in the linked web of promotional material and being able to recognize it as such as evidenced by the merge proposal at the article TP, the acceptance of a non-notable platform, and of course, the self-doubt and concern that an AfD is the right decision based on a fair evaluation. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Jack Victor Page deletion

Hello,

I am trying to create a page about a company named Jack Victor to document about the clothing industry in Montreal. Is there a problem with the page I created ? I don't see it like an advertisement. Also, there is many Montreal based companies that are in Wikipedia.

Aladdin 16 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Aladdin_16

Hi. I just got off a plane on a local flight back home to Udon, so forgive me for saying so but it reads like one of those advertorial paid-for articles in an in-flight magazine that features local businesses of the city you're flying into. Without any disrespect, (because it's the way I was taught to write in marketing college 45 years ago), but it's totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It's very very difficult to write about your own company without it sounding promotional - see WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Add to that, your firm does not have much written about it in the established media that would make it stand out and have what we call Wikipedia notability in order to comply with our criteria at WP:ORG. The Wikipedia annual conference for 2017 will be held in Montreal in next month and is open to everyone. I recommend you go along and see what it's all about, and talk to some folks. Although I speak perfect French, I won't be going this time; it's just too far away. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Aladdin 16, I have drafted something below as an aexample. It's as close as you'll get to describing your company without it being promotional. But of course, to be used, it must have substantial 3rd party sources that discuss the company in depth.

Extended content

xxxxxxxx is a maker of quality men’s tailored clothing, headquartered in Montreal, Quebec. Founded in 1913 by Jack Victor, an immigrant from Romania, as the the Royal Brand Clothing Company and renamed Jack Victor and Son’s in 1949, in 2017 it has around 1,100 employees and remains a family-owned business]in its third generation. In 1958, he passed the management on to his son Herschel who established the Victor Foundation. The first store was opened in 1909 in La Tuque, Quebec in a ground floor room a hotel. Over the next few years, branch stores were established in three other Quebec towns, Montmargny, Drummondville and Cobalt, and in Elk Lake, Ontario. In 1920, Victor moved to Montreal to become a salesman with the Royal Brand Clothing Company. Eventually he became General Manager of Royal Brand Clothing and finally in 1936 was made a partner. In 1939, a coat made of a unique blend of wool, alpaca and llama hair, and featured warmth without weight was introduced to the Canadian market. The new product was well received by Canadian consumers and thousands were sold over the following years. In 1949, the company was renamed Jack Victor and Sons. During the 1950’s the company grew significantly. New headquarters and clothing factory were built in downtown Montreal and completed in May 1951, for the company’s 40th anniversary in 1953. In 1958, Jack Victor passed away at age 72, and business continued under his sons Herschel and Arthur. During the 1960’s the company consolidated its position in the Canadian men’s clothing market. adapting its manufacturing operations to the new fashion changes emanating from England's Carnaby Street. In the 1970’s, Jack Victor further expanded its production capacity and customer base. By the late 1970’s, its products had established themselves in the Canadian clothing market.. The economic recovery of the mid-1980’s afforded Jack Victor an opening to enter the US market with its own collection especially with the introduction of Free-trade agreements of Canada. The company adapted its products to address the popular Italian sryle in the U.S. market. With its European-influenced styling and high quality components and construction, the company quickly gained share in the U.S. market and opened its first U.S. sales office and showrooms in 1994. During the years 1994–2004 the company built additional of manufacturing space and new production lines were created to maintain a consistent quality. In 2001 the company’s showrooms and offices were totally remodeled as in 2001 and media campaigns were introduced to build up the brand. Advertising and public relations centered around prominent sports figures helped to build momentum for the company’s products. In 2004, the company launched its collection of more progressive tailored clothing to complement a modern look for the premium market sector.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Techno-Trend (need help for article on Prabhat Jain, that I published yesterday)

Hello,

I need your help to understand how to fix the "suggest for deletion" for my article. I have provided the reference links but that has not fixed it so far.

Regards, Riyaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno-Trend (talk • contribs) 07:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC) --Techno-Trend (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advises!

Thanks a lot, Kadpung! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Nicolae 77 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Alison Tan

Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Alison Tan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sent to AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Trying to start a new article on my own pages and you delete it?

I'm requesting collaboration to write a new article, I give a kick-off and you delete all my work? On my own pages? I've had a lot of own input and own language use between the chapters, links, categories etc. and all that work is gone now?! Why? --SvenAERTS (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion above. You do not own any pages here. To edit Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. We don't allow copyright infringements anywhere on websites owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and we don't offer our unpaid work to help those who are paid to write articles on Wikipedia or who do it within the framework of their work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

cant edit a deleted page

On the 30th of may you deleted my page; Zaph. The page was later uploaded on another website @wiki.crisclara.com Now I need to edit the page because it contains a serious mistake but I don't know too. It very important that I edit the page or better still delete it because anyone who reads the page sees the false information it will be really helpful if you can tell me how.17:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)zaph17:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaph00 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, if information you posted on Wikipedia has been copied and used elsewhere there is nothing we can do about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

NPP

Hi Kudpung, I was hoping you could give me some advice. After patrolling for a while, I'm now coming across the occasional editor who creates quite prolifically but ignores all messages about referencing concerns, creating the same time after time. Some are obviously problematic, such as User:Hishamhk's unreferenced, or not clearly referenced blps, and some are annoying although the articles are good overall, such as User:Arcarius' refusal to add inline citations or respond to messages about it over a long period, despite there being several sources for the article, leaving it unclear. In these cases, what would you recommend I do? I'm not deliberately patrolling the edits of these two, but have been coming across them a lot. Thanks for any help you can offer, Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Boleyn, did you reach out to those editors with your concerns? It may help to make them aware of WP:V and our citation requirements, especially for BLPs. It could be they just need a reminder. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, yes, several times, as have others. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn. I may have missed something but I can't find a registered account in the name of User:Hishamhk. For Arcarius, perhaps try engaging them on their talk page. But if they don't react to stimuli, and if nothing they do is actually blockworthy, there's not much you can do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, Hishamhmk, sorry, I left out the m [3]. They have their userpage uncreated, but create articles. It is difficult when it is nothing blockworthy, although refusing to discuss other editors' expressed concerns isn't great, a block would seem extreme. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Boleyn: Editors have been blocked before for choosing not to respond to their talk page ("Wikipedia is collaborative"). --Izno (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Izno. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

In an effort to lighten your load Kudpung, I asked Primefac what we, as reviewers, should do about repeated citation noncompliance by the same editor(s) since WP:V is policy and citations are essential. His response is here. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Primefac's solution is about the best think in such a solution. It would wrk best if it were done while the user is in the middle of crating a new artucle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung and Atsme, I'll try that if it continues. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hishamhmk created 5 articles since my warning this morning, all with the same issues, so I have moved some to draftspace, hopefully that will help. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Choi Yoo-jung (singer) article permission

Former I.O.I member Choi Yoo-jung will soon re-debut as a group Weki Meki. So that article seems to be need for update. But, the article is protected, so normal non-administrators like me are hard to contribute to edit. Of course, I don't edit it right now, but I request it because that will be necessary the permission relaxation. --175.223.21.72 (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If you need to edit a protected page, please see WP:Edit request. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You have not figured out what I meant. Choi Yoo-jung is already a famous singer in South Korea. So, if she does activities someday that meets the notable people listing criteria, it should be edit possible. That's why I ask you to relax the indefinite editing restrictions. What I suggest is that to set a time limit for protection or semi-protect. Putting it indefinitely is an excessive measure. Honestly, my English level is not good, so meaning can not be conveyed well. --175.223.21.72 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If you need to edit a protected page, please see WP:Edit request.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA Candidate Poll

Thanks for your comments on my RfA candidate poll. Looks like I need to work on getting my CSD criteria down pat. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 14:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:WPAFC/P

I believe that I was removed from the AFCH participant list due to inactivity. I plan on becoming active in AFC again; can you re-add me to the list? (as it's fully protected) :) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 14:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Done, Caliburn, but would you please consider changing your signature to one that accurately reflects your Wikipedia identity. Otherwise it confuses not only me, but also the many people yo will have to deal with. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

• News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes

• Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more

• In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce

• Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers

• Op-ed: Why Task Forces are Dying in 2017

• Gallery: A mix of patterns

• Humour: The Infobox Game

• Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday

• Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Language

Kudz, you're the language expert, so can you tell me if Xamar is notable? I can't read the refs and have no idea how to even check his notability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my Spanish was only good enough to chase the girls on the beaches in Catalunia in the 70s. I'm too old for that these days (besides, I'm happily married). My grandson does it it now - and lives a lot nearer in France. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	The amount of work you do for new page patrolling is simply amazing. Hope this helps make your day better. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much , Riley. Yes, it was nice to wake up this morning to see your barnstar beaming at me from the screen of my laptop on my bedside table. I had fallen sleep while doing some patrolling and left it open. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Majora Comments

I hadn't seen that because I have stopped watching Jimbo Wales' talk page because it has become largely a venting ground for people with nowhere else to complain about something. Evidently it still is. It has been a place for flamers and trolls to complain that they are about to be banned and to exercise their empty right to appeal to Jimbo Wales. It now appears that someone is worked up about a proposed change in article creation policy and is exercising the empty right to appeal to Jimbo Wales. Thank you for calling my attention to it. I am not sure that I will resume watching Jimbo's talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I share your opinions about Jimbo's page, Robert. In all my years on Wikipedia I've probably not made more than 6 posts to it - two of them today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Robert and Kudpung: this has been the unfortunate cause of my adding Jimbo-talk to my watchlist for the first time ever. I hope to able to remove that page from my watchlist as soon as this is over. I stumbled upon it after a village pump proposal. I hope never to have to go there again. The only other time I came near to commenting there was when Jimmy decided that an Amazon sales page was a reliable source. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, sorta echo RMClenon.Anyway, the one who started the thread is one of our serial-opposers.Somewhat outlying but his thought process works on the lines that applying for rights ≡ presenting oneself for review like some animal wishing to be judged.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, many who comment on that talk page are still relatively new on Wikipedia as concerns the lengthy process concerned in getting our legislation improved and organically developed, which as we know can sometimes take years. What they fail to understand, is that user groups and scripts are certainly not designed to lock competent people out of important maintenance tasks. They are specifically created to keep less experienced users and trolls away from them, which is difficult enough with our often misquoted open access policy. Its philosophical, really. I see these measures as being a glass that is half full, while some see them as one that is half empty. That's their prerogative. Majora means well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep, my thoughts on this are summarised in the first three words here. DrStrauss talk 22:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

NPP software

I was curious what software you use for NPP. Only Wikipedia:Page_Curation? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Curation, which is part of MediaWiki, the software package that runs Wikipedia, but as you are not able to patrol pages, you won't have access to it. And there are a couple of other useful scripts. That's the software. The rest is over 50 years of gut feeling to recognise spam and Copyvios for what they are. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The easiest way for me to try it is probably installing it on a Bitnami MediaWiki stack. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a MediaWiki extension and probably not available through Bitnami, but don't try using it on Wikipedia or you'll risk getting yourself blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Need your input

I'm not quite sure how this article made it into mainspace but it's been a major time sink. I did manage to find a bit of time to run over to the ACTRIAL discussion, and that's another "oh, my!" In the interim, I've been threatened as having abused my NPP rights because I unreviewed the subject article when I saw it was at AfD or it could've been before, and there are a few other accusations twirling around but nothing I'm taking seriously at this point. I'm just trying to follow PAGs (I see all articles as a GA reviewer) but the noncompliance with BLP policy is what has me most concerned because allegations are being presented as facts in WP voice, and oh, my! I don't want to do anything that casts a shadow on my editing abilities but I'm all too familiar with how quickly these types of things can get out of hand. Would you take a look at it from the viewpoint of it having left AfC (I assume) and marked as reviewed by NPP? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I don't doubt for a moment that your action was done in your interpretation of the best interests for the article - I know you well enough by now, and there was nothing particularly innocuous in un-patrolling it and/or proposing a merge, or whatever actually went on, whether or not it was ultimately the best thing to do. Heavens, I've wrongly deleted an article or two out of the six thousand I've got rid of but no one has been yelling to have me desysoped for it. But long story short, I don't want to get involved with anything that even remotely concerns the current US president and his administration, so I won't be reading up on the background of what happened there. What I do believe however, is that the talk page of that article is the location for reaching a consensus on what to do, and having noticed signatures such as MrX and MelanieN in the discussion, I'm sure that the right solution will be found soon and it will all be based on a consensus. But yes, I do agree that it's a time sink. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo's Talk Page

Hey Kudpung! Just because I'm not sure I was clear, I wasn't trying to be pointy on Jimbo's talk page. I'm actually for the proposed changes I just felt as though a lot had changed in the last 6 years on the project, and used RFA to illustrate the point that the community's views have changes quite drastically since 2011. I don't think another RFC is strictly necessary I just think some wider spread notice of the changes would have been better for transparency's sake. Hope this comes across a bit clearer. Personally I do agree with you that RFA has become a bit of a night mare in the last few years and reform would be great although it seems unattainable. If you ever decide to start another push for reform feel free to reach out! :D Happy editing! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cameron11598, thanks for dropping by. Look, I know you're one of the good guys and I've known for a long time that you are concerned about the state of several processes on Wikipedia that urgently need to be addressed. RfA has now bottomed out and it's unlikely to ever get any better. Those who are prepared to throw their hat in the ring usually pass nowadays, so apart from the occasional votes from socks and trolls, the RfAs seem to be a little bit less stressful for the candidates at the moment. I have an RfA running at the moment for a candidate who is absolutely certain to pass, and you can see at a glance how RfA has finally changed, but even he had some trepidation about 7 Days of the Long Knives.

NPP is in a terrible state. I got an RfC through to create a qualified group of patrollers, but it hasn't helped. It's stopped the dramatic sharp and persistent rise in the backlog but it's only holding it at the level it reached. We have to do something to stem the tide of crap new pages that make up 80% of the daily intake, but getting new, ambitious users like Majora to understand is frustrating and a further unnecessary stress. I'm sure they mean well, but they are not following their pings, they won't read the threads properly, and they won't read up on the background of what's going on and why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you pinged me here Kudpung, I'd just like to say that I find it interesting that you label me a "new" user. I'm certainly not new. Two years of my life to this project is plenty of time to understand a lot. I am also not ambitious by any means. Cynical, sure. But not ambitious. I also understand the frustration. I have worked NPR before. I have seen the nonsense. I have experienced it. I follow pings. Just not from people that have threatened me in the past and continue to label me as something that I am not. --Majora (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Majora. So I'm wrong about you being a forensic scientist? I think it might be helpful if you could refrain from denigrating other people's hard work, taking things out of context, and making disingenuous comments around the site about our projects. All new policies, guidelines, and systems get discussed first in smaller groups, especially to avoid the unnecessary background noise of the kind you have been generating. It would be so much nicer if you would take a moment to read up on what's at stake here and collaborate with us rather than heckle from the sidelines. If you want some direct information at any time, don't hesitate to ask me or TonyBallioni - it's what you could easily have done, rather than invite a lot of criticism from us which obviously doesn't make you feel too good. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC).

I feel perfectly fine. Criticism is a fact of life and I knew full well what I was getting myself into with my actions. An action I still felt was a good idea as it fulfilled my stated desire of notification. In any case, nothing that could possibly happen here will have any bearing on my happiness or my overall life. Wikipedia is and always will be a hobby. If it becomes something more I will promptly retire. I have no idea what my being a scientist has to do with anything and I have never denigrated anyone's work. At least not intentionally. --Majora (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Majora. I just totally fail to understand why you are trying to train wreck a scientific experiment designed to protect the very facbric of what you claim to be your hobby. I thought scientists deal with facts and the results of research rather than getting emotional and sounding off about things they even admit to not knowing about. Research? Perhaps at nearly 70 I've been dreaming about what I have been doing throughout my 30 year career in academia. You'll end up not only driving new users away from Wikipedia, I'll join the exodus despite the years and $$ I've invested into it. Please just refrain from making thinks up and spreading untruths around this web site - that kind of thing makes me emmotional, it's called anger. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this edit history?...and another question

I noticed you're around kind of at the moment so... This Commons file has gotten mislabeled. Apparently an editor a while back just laid a different image over the original instead of giving it a new name. Can it be fixed? As of now it is showing the incorrect editor/creator... I know I could ask over at Commons but I don't know where to ask... I stumbled into the image file when I was trying to fix the archiving at Talk:Martha Washington but I can't even get that to work at the moment, even using the instant archiving tool... anyway, any help you could render on the image or the archiving gratefully appreciated. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Shearonink, images are not my parish - I'm pretty clueless in that area. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks anyway for the reply. Is there some Image Maven-admin around tonight that might be able to lend a hand with that image-page? It's all messed-up, I'd like to fix it but I'm not sure how to do it. Shearonink (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disappoint you again Shearonink. I'm afraid I don't know of one offhand. You could put a request at WP:AN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No disappointment at all! I'm always glad to get any kind of answer :-). Shearonink (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

Hi. Thanks for your help on Sir Aubrey Thomas Brocklebank I've removed the cite of Tom Pride blog, and replaced it with the London Evening Standard, which I'm sure is reliable. I'm not sure about the cite of Andrew Dismore. Is it all blogs that are unreliable? Dismore is an MP so he should be reliable. If all blogs are unreliable please could you direct me to the WP page that says so, I don't doubt you but it could be handy in future as I can think of a few pages where I've encountered editors who are using blogs as sources, Censorship in Cuba springs to mind but that is another story. If you're not happy with the cite to Dismore I will remove it but the claim about fire engines is AFAICS supported now by the London Evening Standard. Hey ho.Hmcst1 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hmcst1. London Evening Standard is a well established newspaper and a reliable source. Very few blogs are considered reliable. They may be reliable if they are audited editorial from mainstream press and are not opinion pieces or interviews, but certainly not WordPress or Blogspot for example. Generally all politicians elected to a country's national assembly are notable, but the articles still need sources, such as a UK govt. gazette or official election results in a newspaper etc. Mayors of large cities are notable but not town councillors,or chairmen or Chief Executives of smaller towns or parishes. See WP:POLITICIAN for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Musicians

As well as the AfD I nudged you on just now, please take a look at Neako. Ta. I'm not very good on musician notability. --12:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, Not sure about this bloke. I'm more classic, jazz, and fusion. Has he charted in an official chart or got a silver or gold disc? Is he signed to a major label? Is he just a flash in the pan? Check out WP:MUSICBIO, then go through the refs and see which are reliable sources. Most of them probably won't be. There will almost certainly be a lot of fleeting mentions and interviews. Forget the social media and blogs of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Not something I'm great at, so I'll pass it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I've PRODed it, Dweller. It will probably be dePRODed - rappers and mixtapers are as hard as leather. It will end up at AfD. We're expecting ACTRIAL to reduce the amount of this kind of time-wasting stuff. We'll see. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ta. Not heard of ACTRIAL. I'm off to do some reading. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!!!

Thank you for reviewing my new page, Marae Moana!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks,

TenorTwelve (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I really need your thoughts...

So in the NPR page feed is this Comapny which was created in 2008. Just take a peek at it to see the activity. I would have put a speedy-d tag on it. Why wasn't that done when the article was first created? *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps it was simply missed amon the hundreds of others, but you're certainly beginning to see what a mess NPP is. See User talk:Neelix to see the huge problems caused by this editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

OMG...it's ridiculous. Wish there was a way we could gather up all the questionable articles on WP, and remove the indexing, and then block the habitual troublemakers (probably just trolls) so they can't cause us any further grief. It's bad enough to have to deal with disruptive veteran editors without piling on the IPs and SPAs. I'm amazed that you've lasted as long as you have. ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Roshan Vichare Page

I have just started working on a page that is about a leading actor in an upcoming Marathi Movie that is releasing on 11th August and I request you to remove the speedy deletion tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by VidhiV (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edit on my talk page

Howdy! Any chance you'd restore all the stuff you removed from my talk page? I recently lost my old phone and the cheapo I got to replace it doesn't have the horsepower to make big cut and paste edits. Save me a trip to the library. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Heck, I'm sorry ! John. I don't know how that happened. Anyway, I think I've put it back. There's a mysterious duplication of a couple of posts that I can't figure out, but the main thing is is it's all intact with it history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't you it was the OP. Another shill that expects us to do the work he gets paid for. That's one of the tells of a shill. You'll give him a response at the Teahouse and he'll bring it to your talk and pester you til his advertorial gets deleted. Thanks for fixing that and thanks for your remarks. They were enlightening. John from Idegon (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• You also posted a message to my recent archive, and not my actual talk page. *claps* ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo

I'm sure you'll see this on your various watchlist pages but Jimmy has made a statement on his talk page regarding ACTRIAL, and seems to be on board. While I still have the belief his place in the project is decreasing to the role of spokesperson to the off-wiki world, it is good to see that he does not see the need for an RfC either. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'ts nevertheless very important when something is endorsed by Wales. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oof... discourteous of me

I've started discussion about one of your essays (Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters) at WP:BN. It's raised an interesting point. Please do chime in. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD withdrawn

Hello, Kudpung. Hope, you will be doing well. I have a question. If someone nominates a page for deletion but after some time it starts looking to him that the article is going to be deleted. So, now if he withdraws and says that It should be kept. But, the consensus is in favour of deletion. Do Wikipedia policies allow him to do so or not? Your answer will be helpful for me. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Greenbörg: Well obviously it would help to know what discussion you are refering to? -but, on principle, your answer is no: See WP:WDAFD: "If no one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it [and] if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion." In other words, it can't be withdrawn if others agree with you or if a discussion is by now taking place about it (so even if no-one's actually !voted at that point). Hope this helps. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 13:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason that the nominator can't change their mind and declare they now think the article should be kept - but the discussion will not be closed if there are pertinent !votes for deletion beyond the nomination. That decision is down to the closing admin, though, not the nominator. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree; having found the discusssion in question, none of WDAFD doesn't apply, so it's OK. — fortunavelut luna 13:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, @Yunshui: I'm thankful to both of you for the help. Thanks again. Greenbörg (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

And thank Kudpung for letting us squat on his page :) — fortunavelut luna 13:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung too. Greenbörg (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hi, I just wanted to check you received my email from 14 July. I sent it through the Wikipedia email system so it's possibly gone into a mailbox you're not monitoring. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) 01:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I received it. I certainly wrote a reply but perhaps it landed in my drafts folder if the Internet was down for a few seconds (which often happens). I'll check again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Rcsprinter I sent you a reply on 16 July. Please check your spam and junk mail folders. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It was indeed in spam. Thanks for your reply. Rcsprinter¹²³ (confer) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Just curious...

This is a joke, right? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what aticle it's about so I can't say really. See editor's conrtibs, and edit count. been aroung for 12 years, low edit count; possibly still a little clueless, but almost certainly not a joke. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted back to the redirect, and he reverted me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudz, would A2. Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project apply in this case since there is an article about it here? Basically, the editor wants somebody to do the translation, the authoring and include it in en.Wikipedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

*Sigh*

Ethanbas is still creating tiny non-notable articles [4], contrary to repeated final warnings. His latest is exactly two sentences (23 words) and has no independent references. (He is edit-warring to prevent it being tagged or re-directed.) Of his last 12 creations (all created within the past 6 weeks) 3 have been deleted, 1 more is still at AfD, and 4 more are highly questionable (and should probably be AfDed). I think it's time to require him to submit all of his creations through AfC. What do you think? Softlavender (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, I've had problems with him in the past. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think there is any way of forcing someone to use AfC without getting a consensus at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've just quickly checked his tp. There's a load of PRODs too that he's removed without addressing the issues. Those should now be taken to AfD. With enough AfDs it should be a clear case for a tban on producing new pages in mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that it would probably require a community consensus. My question therefore would be, would you support such a consensus? I'm asking you in particular because you were the administrator (or at least the main one) who instructed him back in February to stop posting malformed tiny uncited or mal-cited stubs. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts from a (talk page stalker)...Kudpung and Softlavender, as you probably know, this situation has some parallels with the indef blocking of Ottawahitech. Having said that, the Ottawahitech problems had gone for years and years and were far more egregious. Ethanbas does have a rationale for his creations [5]. I also know of at least one long-term editor who creates/improves articles to FA level but happily creates junk sub-stubs as well, which cause problems and which some editors find highly annoying. I guess the main problems are the BLPs (these require much more care and effort) and the amount of time taken up by AfDs, some of which are justified, and others not. Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Voceditenore, the problem is, Ethanbas is an extremely problematical editor. He has been extremely disruptive and hostile, even to admins, and has been given a final warning that he can be blocked without notice; he is or has been a paid editor, and his basic M.O. is to thumb his nose at all policies and guidelines. He creates crap articles and stubs and expects everyone else to clean them up. In his five months on Wikipedia he has created havoc all over Wikipedia, has been blocked twice, has an endless rap sheet of warnings on his talk page [6], has had 13+ articles deleted, and is generally costing too much in terms of time and effort in terms of babysitting him. Requiring him to go through AfC would eliminate the need for babysitting. Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh I agree that he's been very problematic, Softlavender, and wasted a lot of editors' and administrators' time. Minimally, he should be made to go through AfC, especially for BLP articles. I'm just saying that getting results at ANI might be more difficult than it was for Ottawahitech. But given this, it's definitely worth a try if he won't cut it out. I must also say that the whole Vipul editing "enterprise" in which he was involved was very murky, and although Vipul claims to have ended it in March, I'm pretty sure aspects of it are still going on here sub rosa. But that's maybe another can of worms. Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore and Softlavender:, it's probably very much the same phenomenon as Ottawahitech. I thing an L3 warning to cut it out or ANI will be the next station for his train. If he doesn't react to that, then ANI it will have to be, and with a call for more than jusr a T-ban from mainspace. Yes, I'm pretty sure I would have to support such a call, but I don't exactly hang out at ANI every day and I actually deliberately don't have it on my watchlist, so I'd need a ping. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like ANI would be the best place for this. Some editor's cannot and will not fix their behavior. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Voceditenore, Jennica, and Softlavender:, I've asked him to stop with the warning that if he continues he will have to answer to the mob. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

He's still at it. He has created 5+ crap stubs [7] since your two July 22 warnings on his talk page ([8], [9]), and has also created one obviously paid article for Vipul (who pays for articles on nonprofits; obviously that paid-editing pyramid scheme has not actually stopped) [10]. I think at this point, with all of the final warnings Ethanbas has gotten in the past 5 months, he should just be indeffed (or banned). Softlavender (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Softlavender. Draft your case and open an ANI, I'll support a preventative block. Cite this thread too, and all the warnings from me, DSeegel, and others. If you need your draft checking, I'll be happy to do so. FYI: @Voceditenore and Jennica:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

On the basis of his recent creations, I doubt if he's get an indef block, and I'm not really sure I'd !vote for one on the basis that he hasn't changed his ways after warnings. True, Bitcoin Cash was probably an unreferenced substub in its first reincarnation and indicates that he was ignoring warnings. He has since re-created with references, although it should probably be redirected to Bitcoin. But... Hi-Five (Israeli band) and Amir Fryszer Guttman are properly referenced and have lengthy articles in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Media Rating Council is strange. It is actually a notable org but his stub creation was obviously a place-holder for Vipul. Why didn't Vipul just create it himself? Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at JSH-alive's talk page.
Message added 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I am the original writer of this article, and doesn't infringe any copywrite law.

Please check your facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moafrika01 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing WP proposal

about your comment here, see my response here. We do not see the same world, and that is surprising to me. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I hear you, Jytdog, but do you really believe that foxes guarding the henhouse will 'have a keen interest in keeping bad apples out of their basket'? Your Wikiwork and mine have different focuses - I see things from my corner that you don't, and vice versa. I'm not allowed to show the evidence of some of the things I know, so that's why my posts often sound as if I'm just driven by opinion and emotion. I'd be interested to get TonyBallioni's opinion - he and I share a lot of ideas on cleaning up Wikipedia, but sometimes we don't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the distinction Tryptofish made immediately above Jytdog's post is helpful. There seem to be two main types of paid editors: those creating new content and those working on existing articles. Those of us who work new pages see what is often irredeemable spam. Like the discussion at WT:CSD has shown us, in these cases talk of paid editing and TOU can often be a distraction from the fact that these pages have no place on Wikipedia for reasons other than TOU violations. In these cases I also think that a WikiProject would be harmful because it would shift the conversation on any page created by these editors away from the core content issues and onto the paid question.

In the case of existing content, the proposal would have probably made it easier for the COIN crowd to keep up the integrity of existing articles. I mainly deal with paid editing from a new content stance, so I'm opposed to any organization like this that is quasi-official. I could get behind a centralized listing of all pages people have declared themselves paid to edit, which I think would be a nice way to split the baby between the two groups of volunteer editors who have the most interaction with paid contributors. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have discussed this with TonyBallioni who has also opposed, and also from the perspective of someone who does NPP work. As I understand it (and Tony please correct me if I have misunderstood) he has said that he is concerned that paid or conflicted editors will seek support for each other at such a WikiProject, and that its existence will increase their ... tendency to batter for what they want.

What I have tried to say to him and also will say to you, is that one of the points for this is that more clueful paid editors, like User:MaryGaulke or User:FacultiesIntact will take on leadership roles and advise the kinds of people you are concerned about, from the perspective of clueful paid editors. Them saying "hey don't shit in our backyard, you are fucking things up for all of us and it is hard enough as it is -- and you are doing your client no favors, nor yourself" sounds entirely different from them, than for you or me saying that.

first I want to be clear. Paid editors exploit the volunteer community. There is no doubt about that.

Clueful paid editors understand that and act accordingly - without arrogance, and with care.

Clueful paid editors disclose and put all edits through peer review, and work graciously with feedback (see above)

Clueful paid editors turn down clients if they can't generate policy-compliant content about them.

Clueful paid editors will not argue to remove legitimate negative content.

Clueful paid editors teach their clients what WP is, what WP is not.

These people do exist!

They are a rarity, but they exist. I want to build on that core via this project.

What bothered me about what you wrote, was a) the notion of " relaxation in our view on paid editing" and b) "Every single paid edit whether it is written neutrally or not, is COI and an attempt to promote a company, a product, a person, or a non-profit.".

As for the second, clueful paid editors are not necessarily promoting. I gutted the Parker Hannifin article because most of it was unsourced promotion. They tried to fix it themselves, which wasted my time reverting them and trying to explain the deal here. They finally hired Mary and she proposed content on talk that fleshed out the history, and 90% of that was useable. I was grateful she provided that, as it was bothering me that there was no history. The same cycle happened at Memorial Sloan Kettering and they hired FacultiesIntact, and it is way better now than it was before. (I did a lot of work on that with FacultiesIntact - probably way more than FacultiesIntact wanted, but they never came even close to pushing me away)

Clueful paid editors can actually contribute valuable content.

As for the first, the moralistic statement that "paid editing is bad" has been entirely ineffective in changing whether paid editing happens at all, and in changing the quality of paid edits. This is just a fact. Paid editing is a reality and moralizing over it is pointless. I want us to try to manage the market. I am going to set the following off, as I am writing too much and I want to make sure this doesn't get lost in my own clutter here.

I want to make clear to the public the following: Wikipedia is a public good, like a national park, that provides knowledge to the public for free. There is a black market of paid editors who violate Wikipedia policy and who are like people who dump industrial waste in our national parks. There are also legitimate paid editors who respect WP's policies and its mission. You should not buy paid editing services from black market paid editors who will pollute Wikipedia. This harms Wikipedia, and harms you. If you want to explore paid editing services, do so with a legitimate paid editor. You can find some at X. They can explain to you why following Wikipedia policies matters to you, and to everybody else who uses Wikipedia every day.

This is a message that the public can use and that speaks to the reality of the market.

You can think about this like needle exchanges, which are also controversial. But which work.

OK, I wrote too much, but I am really bummed by your stance on this issue. I don't want to us, as a community, to keep doing the same ineffective things. I want us to influence the market with our moral vision and mission, instead of trying to will the paid editing market out of existence. Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course we'll never will the paid editing market out of existence, Jytdog, but by maintaining a firm policy that it clearly exploits the volunteer community - which it does - plus some measures that we are working on to make it even more difficult for them, we'll maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. What you'll get otherwise is a lot of negative public opinion,and a lot more people clambouring to make money out if it. I don't know what we can do about the organised spammers who are sending emails to admins though. If I were not an honest person, from the offers I've been made I could have bought myself a very nice new automobile already and flown 1st class to Wikimania next month. And that would be hard for some to resist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Maintaining clarity that WP is a volunteer project that aims to provide knowledge to the public, and being more clear about what legitimate paid editing looks like - and that paid editors exploit the volunteer community - are not contradictory. Are they? I asked over at WT:COI, but are the offers that you (and I assume other admins) getting something new, or something that has been happening off and on? I encourage you to publish these emails on WP btw. As far as I know there is no bar to that, and daylight is the best disinfectant. There are any number of levels of joe-jobbing that could be going on but better to go full public than partial, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The offers I receive are passed on to Arbcom where the senders get quietly CU'd and blocked, usually revealing many socks. No one knows how many emails get sent and from whom until it's reported. No other admins have admitted to me that they've received any. I would assume that admins who have demonstrated having a good knowledge of policies are the ones who get targeted. Even me who is obviously vehemently opposed to paid editing in all its forms - they probably believe that if their offers are big enough even I can become corrupt. I think what I see is only the tip of an iceberg.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hm! Thanks for explaining what you do with them. And for this dialogue. :) Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

My last word (in this thread ) on this Jytdog, is that in my opinion the people who make money out of the unpaid work of Wikipedia's non-spam content contributors and volunteer clean up force are no morally better than people who steal pennies out of a blind man's begging bowl. I don't care who they are and I hope they're reading this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that this is a stance developed from years of standing in front of the torrent of absolute shit that is pumped into Wikipedia every day and I cannot begrudge any stance you take that keeps you sane in the face of all that. I respect the work you have done and do, immensely. We do agree that there are way too many undisclosed paid editors who dump industrial waste in Wikipedia, every day.

I do ask you to think about how we can influence the market that exists all around us. Shaking our finger at it, has done no good. What can we do differently with regard to what we say to the public? I ask you to think about this, and let me know your thoughts. (I thought about this, and came up with this proposal, and keep finding new ways it could be useful externally and internally, the more I stew on it) Jytdog (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see what results the coming trial comes up with. There's nowt much we can do about corrupt admins though. I think Wifione was the last one we smoked out, and I hate to say it, but it's my guess that there are others. I know most of the popular ones personally from my (cattle class) travels around the world to conferences and meet ups; it's the 1,100 others whose names rarely crop up anywhere but do a sly edit once in a while to keep their bit from expiring that give me pause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there an admin newsletter or IRC channel or whatever? Has this been discussed among you all? I can imagine CUs being run quietly to check for socking by admins that looks like paid editing.... Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I thank Tony for the mention, which is what brought me here. I really like very much what Jytdog said in the indented paragraph. Other that what I have said before, please let me suggest that Kudpung and Jytdog might not be as far apart in your views as it may appear. As I see it, this may be a case where "needle exchanges" can be a good thing as an informal effort, rather than as something that has an "official" name conferred upon it. White-hat editors can say "hey don't shit in our backyard, you are fucking things up for all of us..." as individual editors, without needing a formal project that could be misconstrued as enabling or endorsing black-hat efforts. In fact, the message might even be more effective if it is individualized instead of organized. And for the few white hats, they should realize that they actually have a vested interest in helping as individual editors. So I find myself feeling like I agree with Jytdog about the value of "needle exchanges" while also agreeing with Kudpung that creating formal projects is likely to be counter-productive. I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification Requested

I have read the above exchange, and am not entirely sure what User:Jytdog is proposing about paid editors. I am a little surprised and intrigued that Jytdog, a defender of neutral science (against pseudo-science and against leftist and rightist science crap) and of neutral editing, is proposing what sounds like a policy of toleration of paid editors, but that further makes me think that I don’t fully understand the proposal. First, are we all in agreement that undisclosed paid editors are poisonous parasites and can no more be tolerated than H1N1 and Ebola? Second, so is the question about some sort of accommodation with the disclosed paid editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The very short story...

• Paid editing remains a big problem, despite all our efforts and the consistent line denouncing paid editing as "bad", a thriving marketplace has grown up all around us, where people buy and sell paid editing services.
• I've been asking myself, what can we do differently??
• I have been thinking about Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms and how that is kind of an informal community.
• At an MfD concerning that statement this spring (where we overwhelmingly kept it) I wrote this: ... I agree that this being an "essay" is not really appropriate.... One thing I have been considering for a while, is whether there should be a WP:Wikiproject Paid Editing or the like (the name would be one of the hardest things) -- a sort of guild of paid editors within WP that would actually a) create and maintain best practices consistent with the policies and guidelines (per this statement); b) help educate new PR people who show up so we wouldn't have to spend so much time doing that; and c) of course be careful as hell to avoid becoming a lobbying group itself or to do bad things like peer reviewing each other's's proposed articles and content. So I would almost want to see this moved to a new WikiProject. I wasn't really ready to propose that yet, but this seems as good a time and place as any. So keep for now.
• this reported piece in the The Entrepreneur magazine a month ago really struck me. There was no sense in it that there is a black market of undisclosed paid editors who are like people who sneak into national parks and dump industrial waste, and legit paid editors who follow policy and respect the nature of WP and their (tenuous) position here.
• Nobody is defining the market for paid editing. It struck me, that nobody but us would ever do that. We have not done it so of course it hasn't happened, and so what the public sees, is a blur of undifferentiated paid editing companies. All we do is shake our "bad dog" finger at it, and people just shrug that off, like New Yorkers drink beer on their stoops at night (the law against that is just silly, right)
• I have lately started proposing this "paid Wikiproject", and how we could use it internally as well as in our communications with the world (examples of legit paid editing that we can contrast with "black market"/illegitimate paid editors), in various places to take the temperature of the community. It is pretty hot!  :)
• A discussion at the village pump here was pretty opposed but several folks suggested re-vivifying WP:WikiProject Cooperation. There is another discussion at Jimbo's talk page and another at WT:COI.
• I am actually starting to try this "public diplomacy". See my comments on this horrible blogpiece by an undisclosed paid editor here.

There you go. I hope you don't regret asking. I am very interested in your thoughts, Robert. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog - I don't regret having asked. However, the horrible blogpiece seems to illustrate what Kudpung is saying about paid editors, which is that they are stealing pennies from blind beggars' bowls. You mention "defining the market" for paid editing, but are there enough honest paid editors (given that there are a few of them) for "market definition" to be feasible (let alone for them to try to make a dishonest business honest)? I will comment more later, but it looks like an effort to persuade an illegal business to practice ethical business. Maybe you haven't made your case yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What I am more interested in, is informing consumers of paid editing about the difference. As long as there are ignorant consumers there will be people selling shit to them. The Entrepreneur piece really killed me - the reporter actually talked to a PR person from the WMF. I am hoping to talk to that person next week to find out how the discussion went (it may be that she tried hard to communicate the situation and the reporter wasn't hearing it; but i am concerned that the message was weak or garbled). We should all be giving a very clear message that undisclosed paid editors = people who dump industrial waste in national parks. In my view that is not enough, however. People who want to explore buying paid editing services should know where to go. So we should be pointing them somewhere. My metaphor for this is needle exchange.

But when I talk about influencing the market, I am talking the demand side, not the supply side. There is nothing we can do about that. Although.. i have pushed to have WMF legal become more aggressive where they can - where people are using WMF trademarks in advertising, etc. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

However much one pleads for the honesty of the editors who have disclosed their paid involvement, the fact remains that not one single man jack of them has any scruples about their blatant exploitation of us, the blind beggars, whose party the are gate crashing and freeloading on our food and booze. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The question that we now find ourselves asking 16 years after Jimmy and Larry got together to launch this website thinking it be cool but not realizing how massive an impact it would have on humanity is whether or not the simple existence of a page on Wikipedia for a local fish and chips shop in Ipswich is a form of advertisement. If exposure on Wikipedia is the most significant form of coverage it has ever receive and the editor is paid, I'd argue yes. This is a huge credibility issue and where the GNG and NOT intersect to have real world consequences (and could even cause Citogenesis in some cases). I suppose Kudpung and I come at it from a different angle than Jytdog. I don't think we can ever dry up or educate the consumer end of the market enough to make an impact, but I do think we can catch a good amount of the spam, and I think that is more critical to maintaining our credibility than having consumers know who the people they can pay without breaking the legal conditions for using this website are. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

About the "more critical" bit - this is often where efforts to generate movement get ground to a halt. People say "X is more of a problem/more critical/etc." This isn't a zero sum thing. Jytdog (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Tragedy of the Commons and Paid Editors

By the way, I wonder if the undisclosed paid editors understand that each of them is engaged in a tragedy of the commons, in that each of them is competing not only against honest editors but against other undisclosed paid editors, because if the paid editing reaches a certain point, Wikipedia will lose its current reputation as being worth having an article in, and will become just another vanity directory. Each paid editor should be (in their own rational dishonest interest) trying to expose and destroy other paid editors, because Wikipedia can only sustain a certain level of parasitic infection before becoming worthless. Maybe it is worth publicizing that truth in order to get the paid editors to turn on each other, as long as we don’t do anything to encourage them such as offering a bounty for each tail. (Yes, tail. Trolls have tails, and so probably do paid editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Tragedy of the commons, @Robert McClenon, Jytdog, and TonyBallioni: is a very easy concept to understand for anyone in the world of an age of over 10. The article's own tragedy is that it now so long and repetitive that no one in their right mind would do more than scan through it. Interestingly it was one one of the very first Wikipedia articles ever, and its third edit was by Larry Sanger himself.

However, its no good appealing to paid 'editors' to use common sense when the goal is making an easy or a fast buck - and the advertising industry is one of the largest and most lucrative on the planet. They are, as I mention above, like the people who steal the pennies from a blind beggar's bowl - they have no morals. IMO the only way to reduce (we'll never completely eradicate it) paid editing is to remain firm and make it known as widely and loudly as possible that it simply is not tolerated in any shape or form. I appeal to anyone who wants to understand what Wikipedia is being allowed to mutate into to spend an hour or two patrolling new articles. That's all they need to do. Nothing else. Our problem is that the 450 New Page Patrollers, once they are accorded the right, quickly despair and look for something else to do. 80% of new articles today have their origins in South Asia. 80% of those articles are spam, while of the remaining 20% of them half of them are stubs about villages, a quarter are about Asian deisms, movies, and autobios, and the rest are incomprehensible nonsense. This is also one of the reasons why NPP and NPR require highly active coordination.

Two related measures tat are going to have to be discussed in the not to distant future (to the dismay of te Wiki idealists) is the need to relax somewhat the restraints of use imposed on our Check Users, and to allow the flag to a few more highly highly experienced and trusted admins. A significant amount of spam and paid editing done through the creation of multiple accounts and VPN; there is always a backlog at SPI, and it always looks as if of the 10 Check Users (excepting present and former Arbs) Bbb23 has for a long time been having to do do most of the work himself, relying on the background evidence examined by the clerks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, in April 2015, I introduced an idea at Jimbo's TP to deal with topics in the encyclopedia that create the majority of COI issues. It was an idea, not a planned proposal by any means, but I still believe it has merit if given proper consideration. Is it agreed that the bulk of paid editing stems from business entities and/or self-promotion (excluding anything academic in nature which is easily remedied by current methods)? If we study the primary attraction for businesses wanting a page in Wikipedia, we can better treat the cancer. Robert McClenon provided a chilling look into the future if we sit back and do nothing while the invasion continues. What is so wrong about organizing the pedia into sections (we already have "categories" but haven't explored their potential)? For example all corporations and businesses (hospitals and private schools are businesses, too) would be sectioned into bus.Wikipedia to protect the integrity of en.Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is defined as a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically. Ok, so why not take it one step further and arrange it categorically into "books" or "volumes"? Each can have their own main pages. We already know we have a slew of paid editing going on now, and we know those editors will object to anything that threatens their "livelihoods" - those numbers are growing. I can assure you there are editors sitting at home wondering why they should be doing all the work for free while others are taking advantage of their volunteer work. Something has to give. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Atsme - I don't understand, or maybe I do understand and think that it is a poorly thought out idea that can't work. Are you proposing to create sub-encyclopedias, with one for businesses? Would paid editing be allowed there? Based on the comment below by Kudpung, I will be taking this to your talk page, but I really don't understand. I certainly don't see what cause they have to "object" to a threat to their illegal livelihood, but I don't see how this answers anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Due to the recent insults from Beyond My Ken (known for his inapropriate behaviour) , I am withdrawing from all comments and further work to combat paid editing. I will concentrate my efforts on seeing ACTRIAL through and then I will retire definitively from this madhouse. I have better things to do here at home. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

(1) I did not intend to insult you, and I don't believe I did. (2) Please stop pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

FIRST Global

Hi, you marked my contribution on FIRST Global for speedy deletion. I answered back on the talk page - could you explain if it is still unsatisfactory, and what specifically in good faith must be done to fix it? You suggested I was paid to write the article - which is not at all the truth - I'm just an alumni of the competition who, like for FIRST Robotics Competition, FIRST Tech Challenge and other FIRST programs by Dean Kamen, wanted to create a wikipedia page so that more people are aware of its existence. Korfan12 (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This is your lucky day, Korfan12. It's the first time in 10 years and almost 10,000 pages I've deleted as an admin that I've let myself by convinced by a contested CSD ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello K. I saw your report here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gramjames/Archive and thought you should be aware of the edits by this new account Grahamdalby123 (talk · contribs). There may not be anything to do but as you are aware of the previous situation I wanted to alert you to this. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, MarnetteD. Blocked as another sock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi,

I AM a native of Bucharest, THAT is Romania (formerly known as DACIA). I AM a working bank employee with over 20 years experience in the financial system (banking but not only banking). I AM seeking wisdom and an answer to all the questions! How can I get admin rights on Wikipedia? Dragos vik (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC) αβ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragos vik (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Welcome to Wikipedia, Dragos. I'll answer for Kudpung. Admin rights are granted to people who have been constructive editors here for a long time and demonstrated a broad understanding of Wikipedia policies. Generally an administrator is expected to have been actively editing for at least a year and to have many thousands of constructive edits. Kudpung himself has written an essay, Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, with more detail. Someone like yourself - a brand new editor with only a few edits - is not ready to think about becoming an administrator. Do good editing here, starting in areas that interest you, and maybe someday you can think about it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. And you should NOT make edits like this. That kind of thing is vandalism. Please make only edits that are helpful and improve the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Melanie! I appologize if I made a mistake. I am still learning about Wikipedia and the principles that it follows. Can you pls help me to learn more quickly? For example, what does it mean EDITING? What can I edit as a low-level user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragos vik (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dragos vik: I've left some helpful information and links on your talk page. I highly recommend you read through them for advice. Regards, GAB^gab 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks GAB, I appreciate it! Dragos vik (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible Paid Editing Controversy

Is anyone following this controversy about a possible paid editor? WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#International_Project_Management_Association. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

We are contesting deletion on rapper/producer Don P. We left out promotional material to comply with Wiki standards, we'd be happy to submit more information on said artist. The article was fine until we post a different article that did not meet Wikipedia standards. Thank you for your time. - Admin@TheSouthBeachTimes.com

Mogul Media

'We' has just been blocked for block evasion. The draft has been tagged G5, and it's still as non notable as the salted article it tries to replace. (FYI Materialscientist). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Faux Pas (band)

Hi

I was asked to explain why the article shouldn't be deleted (I think - I'm new to Wikipedia). Might I suggest that upon proposing deletion (and deleting), that you give some explicit reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article so that it won't be deleted. I'm not saying the deletion was dubious, but probably wasn't necessary either. I only want to contribute and learn in the process. Unfortunately, I don't get any smarter if I don't what I'm doing wrong.

Thanks. Iwersen (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iversen. The reasons were provided. You were given 7 days to react and you have waited a further 9 days before coming back to Wikipedia to find out what happened to the article you created. Every new user is given links and guidelines before creating articles and the onus is on them to ensure that what they create is in compliance with Wikipedia requirements. Unfortunately '..the encyclopedia anyone can edit' does not mean drive by, drop something off, and take for granted it will be kept. You can rest assured the deletion (if I did it) was necessary, and if you would like to read WP:My first article, and WP:BAND and you then believe it would sand a chance, you are welcome to ask me to undelete it and we'll take it from there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Baseball WA & SA

Hi there, I noted after following a redlink on a template that you recently deleted Baseball WA (and Baseball SA). (20:07, 5 June 2017 Kudpung (talk | contribs) deleted page Baseball WA (Expired PROD, concern was: Notability issue. Wikipedia isnt a list.)) Are you able to userfy these for me, as they are almost certainly valid topics, but maybe the article didn't appropriately reflect or cover the topic. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. See user:The-Pope/Baseball WA, and user:The-Pope/Baseball SA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation

Sorry about this random comment, but I have learned 3 new useful vocabularies from one of your recent comment. Thank you! Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 16:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

? :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Peanut gallery. Alex Shih^Talk 17:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, I will always appreciate your encouragement, understanding and guidance. I look forward to meeting you in real life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Cullen328, but I think that in future, you will probably be the one to whom I will be turning for understanding and guidance. Nevertheless, if you need any help finding and using your new bells and whistles, don't hesitate to ask. There are also several excellent scripts (made by others) in my vector.js page that are of particular help to adminsKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Schloss Ledenburg

Sigh. Don't you think a reader notices that the refs are in external links, without a tag? I will get to that article when I'll nominate for DYK, most often a week after creation. I try to fill one red link per day, often translated from German, and they typically come without inline citation, - today Gerhild Romberger, go tag (the one inline citation that was there didn't suppport the fact until I changed it) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am very sorry if I am making any disruptive vandalism. I don't see myself vandalizing. I just like to edit articles so it could give them facts and knowledge. Please don't make me feel like a vandal even though I am not. Tallahassle (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

NPP additional software/tool-set...

Hi, Kudpung,

• Would you mind adding my name to User:Timotheus Canens/Kissle/permissions?Quite interested to engage with NPP in a different work-flow!TC is only sporadically active on en.wiki and the last few requests date years back but still have no responses!
• Further, I have decided to remove User:Martinp23/NPWatcher from as a historical software.See the notice at User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage.
• Lastly, does this script work for you? It failed in my case!

Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added your name. Be extremely careful with this because it is out of date and has not been maintained for 4 years and may not be compatible with the current version of MediaWiki. Nobody is currently using it. You are entirely responsible for what you do with it and if things go wrong you could be sanctioned.

NPWatcher is totally dead.

I don't know what the VoA script does and I can't find a description of it. Probably also a deprecated script.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I will be using Kissle on a per-article tag-and-check basis.But even I'm doubtful if it will work!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you got it correct!(Assuming the password to be entered is my account-password and not something dispatched by TS), the software is dead.It does not proceed beyond the login screen and returns a 403(Access Forbidden) error.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Also, can you kindly add my name to this page?And, do you know of any way to check the last date a particular script was used on en.wiki? Gen. a script-edit suffixes a link to it's page in the edit summary.This could be useful but I couldn't find any tool to sift through all contributions on en.wiki possessing a particular edit-summary!Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please ask KingPin directly. Nobody has used that either for over 3 years. I think you would get more satisfaction by examining new ideas and new developments and helping with beta testing when the time comes, rather than experimenting with scripts that are out of date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah! I too have little interest in using dated software and tools/scripts---esp. in lieu of new software! I just wished to evaluate whether they were in working condition failing which I would have removed them from the NPP guide.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Godric, you might want to subscribe to the Phabractor tasks at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements that are listed as tracked. Commenting on T167475 both on-wiki and in phab in support would be particularly appreciated (yes, I'm boldly canvassing per IAR since this is the one easy to do feature that virtually everyone wants and that is already incorporated into other MediaWiki software features.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:-- Done.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Apology Cookie

I am very sorry for giving out barnstars too much. And I am very sorry for any other upcoming action that I might accidentally cause. Tallahassle (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Jhoven Sulla (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)This Tireless Contributor Barnstar i give to you, thanks to add the sources that iv'e done Jhoven Sulla (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Emoji Movie

I understand why you protected the page, but you removed many important sections that shouldn't have been removed. Can you please revert back to Adamtb24's last edit on that page? --RIP Previous Account, You Will Be Missed (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry RIP Previous Account, You Will Be Missed. There are just too many reverted. In fact I've now also full protected it. I've discovered a lot of the vandalism is coming from proxies. All this vandalism occured within 48 hours of the last long pp expiring. For the moment, at least until I've finished blocking all the IPs, you'll have to be patient. I'll then revert to semi-protected. After I have done that, I'll block anyone for disruption who makes a restore of a previous version. and then you can restore any edits one-by-one (there are not many). Thanks for your comprehension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Emoji Movie

Please add the information regarding the critical reception and box office info on the Emoji Movie. This is important detail as it is seen on other movies. Why remove it anyway? They've been sourced. Add the sources. It is helpful. -- Adamtb24 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

See the thread above. Sorry Adamtb24, there are just too many reverts. In fact I've now also full protected it. I've discovered a lot of the vandalism is coming from proxies. All this vandalism occured within 48 hours of the last long pp expiring. For the moment, at least until I've finished blocking all the IPs, you'll have to be patient. I'll then revert to semi-protected. After I have done that, I'll block anyone for disruption who makes a restore of a previous version. and then you can restore any edits one-by-one (there are not many). Thanks for your comprehension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Emoji Movie reception

When you protected the Emoji Movie page, you deleted the Reception section, which was written just fine and properly sourced. Could you add that back? Gameman18 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

See the thread above. Sorry Gameman18, there are just too many reverts. A lot of the vandalism is coming from proxies. All this vandalism occurred within 48 hours of the last long pp expiring. The page has now been placed under a lower level of editing restriction. Please see the talk page for details. I'll block anyone for disruption who makes a restore of a previous version(there are not many good edits). Thanks for your comprehension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A new proposal to give the community desysopping powers

Hi Kudpung. I know you have a vested interest in RfA related matters as well as community desysop procedures. So I would like to invite you to co-propose a new proposal that I have brewing in my head. It's probably easier to discuss this via email. I will be building the RfC at User:Cyberpower678/Community Desysopping Procedures Workshop. I welcome your participation.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Tag

FYI the master was not the one named on the SPI (confirmed by two CUs). You might want to delete the tag on that user page you blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Which one? Can't remember. This is a mess and there's going to be some unavoidable collateral damage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

here. The named master doesn't match the socks and the SPI hasn't been moved yet because the clerks need to figure out what title it needs to go under. Now I'm actually off to bed. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting things...

Recently Basalisk reverted my G5ing James Bradby.Now, his concerns if correct, probably means that all your deletions at WP:COIN#Four new sock farms don't stand.(And we have to proceed with all the articles through AfD/Prod since the whole farm was banned today.)I think I'm definitely somewhere wrong in my understanding of the policies but could not pick it out!Any opinion??Winged Blades ^Godric 15:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Bbb23, TonyBallioni, and GeneralizationsAreBad:.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Basilisk's decline of the g5 and their edit summary were both absolutely correct. The timing is not amenable to a g5.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23:So now that, Basilik's de-CSDing stands, supposedly an account Mr.X claims at WP:UNDELETE that the afore-mentioned deletions failed the rigor of policies and seeked a refund to mainspace.What do we do?Winged Blades ^Godric 15:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You didn't provide a direct link within UNDELETE, so I don't know which articles we're talking about. In any event, if Kudpung incorrectly g5ed some articles, he should restore them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23. When working on massive sock farms like these that concern blatant misuse of our policies, a certain amount of flexibility is required, otherwise we can all shut up shop and go home. IAR means Wikilayering is inappropriate. Why hasn't Tomwsulcer been blocked yet? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that we should apply IAR to g5. Tomwsulcer is, as I found,  Unrelated. He should not be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23:--What does  Unrelated mean? Are you confirmed there's no behavioral overlap? Or it's just on the technical fine-tunes?Winged Blades ^Godric 15:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It means that Bbb23 is confident from technical details that I made a mistake when I named the case after that user. I was wrong. As I stated at the COIN board and at WT:NPR when letting people know to watch out for similar creations: the named user was not connected based on CU details. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course; strictly that only means that you associated the wrong sockmaster. I suppose it doesn't actually mean that X is not a sock. — fortunavelut luna 16:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Bbb23 found ~20 socks confirmed to one another as a part of "group one". These socks do have significant overlap on some articles with similar accounts that are stale. Kudpung yesterday did observe a connection to an old account with over 300 article creations. These creations followed a similar style to some of the socks from yesterday. When I compared it to a random sampling of the confirmed socks there were 42 pages that the user was the first to edit on. This doesn't mean that we should G5 all of those article: but it does mean that we should likely review them for notability and COI. I don't know the technical details here, but I have been told by two CUs (Bbb23 and Katie) that this was a very complicated case. I trust them to do their job, but also recognizing that there is a strong possibility that there are a significant number of stale accounts out there. We should go through the sock contributions, check them. See if there are any issues, and deal with them accordingly. Being methodical in checking through this is important. No rushes to judgement, while recognizing that some of these accounts have been around for a long time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that they might be stale is precisely the reason why qucking must be taken into account. Why should we believe that paid socking is a new phenonenon? We already know that some users had a long term agenda before they were finally discovered. Getting a VPN is also cheap and easy. And now I've also been on this for 17 hours, it's nearly midnight (again), and I'm going to bed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Fry that spam!

@TonyBallioni:--I dare say, despite your like for methodism, you messed it in this edit!I would be happy to see it vanish but things are bleak for sure...I don't know why I started this goddamn thread!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This case is a major headache, and I haven't even begun evaluating much of it. I'll try to bring in another clerk or two. GAB^gab 16:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is disagreement amongst administrators as to how G5 applies to cases like this: some, like DGG, Kudpung, and Doc James view it as applying since we can be reasonably confident that there was an initial blocked account. Others prefer to know the initial blocked account's name and date before doing so. I tagged to get more eyes on it. If someone declines, I don't mind prodding it as a TOU violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup with these massive families of sock puppets the chance of there not being a prior blocked sock is around zero. Thus I am happy to see G5 applied in these cases and do deleted articles with this as a basis myself. At this point we need to decide do we want to be an independent encyclopedia. I am on the side of yes :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable applying G5 in this case. The criteria for speedy deletion are deliberately defined very narrowly by the community, and by the letter of the law G5 should not apply here. I don't think "there is probably another blocked sock out there somewhere" is a strong justification for bending the CSD rules and deleting articles simply because we think the editor is paid. That is a misapplication of the policy. I don't feel particularly strongly about it and wouldn't call another admin out for doing it, but sometimes I think we run the risk of cutting off the nose to spite the face. G5 is supposed to be a tool that deters editors from evading blocks, not being paid for editing. If we apply it broadly like this we risk deleting perfectly good articles simply because we don't like how they came into being. That's not building an encyclopaedia, that's enforcing a moot legal system. If we are really ignoring all rules, I think a lot of the time in cases like this the best thing for the project is to retain the articles. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Our readers deserve an independent Wikipedia not full of paid for advertisements. If someone has created 10 accounts which are found to be socks, and each of those accounts has written one spammy article, I am sorry but apply G5 to all of them is perfectly within the realm of what it was meant for. G5 is to dissuade people from creating armies of socks to hide their editing activities and get around WP's rules against undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)