Jump to content

User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jun 2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hi Kudpung

I would like to know is it not arrows to paste SNS links in en wiki such as Facebook, twitter, instagram and youtube channels which you deleted from[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensaku_Kakimoto Kensaku_Kakimoto]'s page which I made yesterday also office HP was deleted Office-saku HP. JP wiki is common to paste those links.

Best reagards,

Sakusaku01 (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Suakusaku01[reply]

Hi. On English Wikipedia it is not allowed to use social media sites as references or Eternal links.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double take

[edit]

Hey K, This. All the way to the bottom.. First "touch" of that article was when account was four days old. Case 1, Case 2. I'm headed for bed but I thought I'd put this interesting bit out there for you to ponder.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter, it was something else that gave me pause, something more ominous and sinister, but thanks for the heads up - it gets curiouser and curiouser. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

[edit]

Hi, just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion nomination of Pentastrattismo because it seemed to cover a broader artistic movement rather than an organized organization such as a company or society. I considered WP:A11 but I think any sourcing would be in Italian so I wasn't quite willing to add that at this point. Appable (talk | contributions) 20:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The page has been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOINDEX and new pages

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T166852
Resolved

Are you really sure NOINDEX on "new articles" is 90 days, I thought this changed to 30 (c.f. Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing#Indexing_of_articles_.28.22mainspace.22.29). — xaosflux Talk 18:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I posted just before I went to bed: ... NO_INDEX actually expires after 90 days (and fortunately so) . And here's how it was done, by Kaldari, Roan Kattouw (WMF), Cenarium, and myself...
Unless the devs forgot to do it, perhaps each thinking the other one would do it, 90 days is what it is. It appears that the misinformation was inadvertently made by Cenarium in this post.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cenarium: (perhaps @Kaldari:?) - can you verify this setting so we can confirm or correct our on-wiki documentation? (Preferably with a link to the as-is configuration parameters?). — xaosflux Talk 23:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: @Kudpung: I looked it up: the code triggered by $wgPageTriageNoIndexUnreviewedNewArticles checks PageTriageHooks::isArticleNew(), which in turn checks if the article is older than $wgRCMaxAge. The MediaWiki default for that setting is 90 days, but on WMF wikis it's set to 30 days. So it appears to me that Cenarium is right and that it is in fact 30 days, not 90. To validate this, I looked at two unreviewed new pages that are just under or just over 30 days old. 2017–18 Washington State Cougars men's basketball team created on May 4th is noindexed, but Hindi film directors created on April 29th is not. --Roan Kattouw (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The NOINDEX expiration is equal to whatever $wgRCMaxAge is set to, since this is the value that determines whether an article is "new" or not throughout MediaWiki software. $wgRCMaxAge is set to 90 days by default, however, English Wikipedia has it set to 30 days. I'm not sure why that is the case. If 90 days is preferable, we could either propose changing $wgRCMaxAge back to the default (90 days), or we could just hard-code 90 days into the NOINDEX code and forget about using $wgRCMaxAge. Sorry for the confusion around this and sorry if I may have given incorrect information in the past. Kaldari (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(not an edit conflict, but I investigated this before seeing the preceding three edits) Easy enough to show that it's less than 90 days - compare the html source from unreviewed pages created before and after 30 days ago. Bruce Langley, created on May 3, has <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>; Kukisvumchorr, created on April 3, does not. —Cryptic 23:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Kaldari and I agreed here that it should be set at 90 days. If it were set any shorter, there is a great risk at this stage that extremely inappropriate content has been fiitering into the body of the encyclopedia and Google's caches, and will never receive any further attention from the maintenance community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere it was 90 days but when I said that at ANi I was corrected. Evidently there is confusion on the number. Give the backlog at NPP that extends well beyond 90 days, I'm all for 90 days. Much of the oldest part of the backlog is pages that have been checked and vetted but not "accepted" with the green checkmark so I'm not to worried about serious issues going past 90 days. Of course many pages will be accepted faster than 90 days and have no index removed anyway. Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my page?

[edit]

Hello,

You marked the page "EnergyFunders" for deletion and I accidentally deleted the tag. Nothing was meant by that action. I would like to know how the page should be edited and what in your opinion should be changed to comport with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for your time and consideration.

--NatRes25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatRes25 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just curious as to why you deleted my page about Bonin Bough and asking if you could please reconsider.

Sofia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.61.173 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are the comments by the AfC team that you were provided with:


  • Comment: In the eight minutes between the last decline and resubmission, one word was changed. Paid editors need to take care not to waste the time of good-faith volunteers, and a waste of time is exactly what this is. Please either improve the draft or abandon it. Are you really suggesting that someone might be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia because he had an idea for a tweet? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When I read that the subject had been inducted into the Advertising Federation's Hall of Fame, I was ready to believe that the draft had cleared the "notability hurdle". But further checking reveals that the subject has not been inducted into that Hall of Fame. Instead, the subject received a "Hall of Achievement" award, which I understand to be a sort of "young person's" award granted to about half a dozen persons each year. That isn't enough to establish notability, and I'm not seeing anything else in the draft that establishes it, either. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPP 2

[edit]

So then, BLP PROD is not supposed to be on pages like that?The garmine (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way, The garmine: people who patrol new pages are supposed to know what they are doing. That comes through the experience of general content editing. In short, after having done WP:BEFORE before tagging an article, if a subject brings forth no Ghits of the kind that can demonstrate notability, then the page would be an obvious choice for CSD. But please don't worry about that until you are really ready to patrol new pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I asked cuz I wanted to know why. Thanks! The garmine (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand 'cuz' Could you please use correct adult English in your communications - Wikipedia is a serious project. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email :-)

[edit]
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—usernamekiran(talk) 14:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

Thank you for reviewing my article on Duke Buchan. I wrote an article on him as Buchan was the only ambassador candidate at Political appointments of Donald Trump who did not have an article yet. Today there is another one, Steve King from Wisconsin. My next new article will be on King. In addition, I will work to improve the other candidates' articles.--Vincent5 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for review

[edit]

Thank you for reviewing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Menn%C3%A9gand. I believe I've now taken care of the naked URLs issue. All the best Redherring87 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting additional information on marking necessary pages for deletion

[edit]

Hi Kudpung,

I notice that you have marked another page, SIGARCH for speedy deletion. The article is the start of an article that is highly parallel to other ACM Special Interest Group articles. ACM is one of the most important organizations in computer science.

Please take a moment to explain why this article is getting marked for deletion (and other related articles), but not others that are very similar. Thank you kindly. Cypherquest (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cypherquest, I understand your concerns and it is possible that it may be an important organisation. Unfortunately it does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for an article (WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:RS). Wikipedia is now becoming very sensitive to the quality of articles in mainspace; if you wish to avoid your articles being deleted for lack of the required kind of sources while you look for them, please consider creating and developing them as a WP:Draft or in your user sub-pages first . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Robyne Dunn & Geoff Robertson

[edit]

Hello Doctorhawkes, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Robyne Dunn & Geoff Robertson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: please check the sources again and use a different deletion method if apprpriate. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do believe the article is a hoax. All of the sources are for Robyne Dunn. You'll notice the similarities. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page attack

[edit]

My user talk page has come under attack from the same IP who is posting vile anti-Christian personalised attacks. Could do with it being protected and RevDel'd if possible. Wes Wolf Talk 09:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Shekhterman & Stephan DuCharme

[edit]

Hi.

These two people are the heads of the largest food retailer in Russia - X5 Retail Group. There are a lot of information about them and their work in key Russian media - Vedomosti, Kommersant, TASS, RIA Novosti and others.

Now I am completing the corrections to article X5 Retail Group in English. The information in this article is very outdated. It takes a little time.

If you think it's right, I can include their biographies to the article about X5 Retail Group. Mikhailalexandr (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Tomuli article

[edit]

You are welcome --KoreanDragon (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Supervenience article

[edit]

You proposed my article for deletion. I strongly object. The topic is a very significant one in the area of meta-ethics, and deserves its own article; as noted on the talk page, it is barely discussed even on the general article for supervenience. My current first-draft text is doubtless in need of improvement; if you are familiar with the area, feel free to make suggestions or changes you deem appropriate, if not, please leave it to others to do so. The article is strongly sourced, although it does use an original example to illustrate the main concept. If you have particular suggestions about which items need additional documentation, please mark these. I also know the organization can be improved, but I can't do everything at once, and hope to get input from other readers. ScottForschler (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ScottForschler, I strongly object to your tone here. You are talking as if you have a 'right' to add an article to Wikipedia. If you would like our advice how to make this article that is written like an academic paper, suitable for our encyclopedia, please adopt a different approach. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kupdung, I strongly object to /your/ tone here. I asserted no personal 'right' to add an article, but rather that such an article should exist. Misrepresenting my statements does not contribute to a productive dialogue; or should I accuse you of claiming a 'right' to remove an article from wikipedia? :-) Ahem. If you have constructive criticism regarding the form or content of the article, please feel free to begin doing so at any time. You will find me generally receptive to this, but I do suggest that /you/ adopt a different approach rather than just slapping a delete request on a new and admittedly imperfect page. As noted, I began it in part to invite contributions from others; I am far from the only expert in this area. In the meantime, I will continue work on improving the page as time permits. Remember, too, that you said "You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions." Well, my question is why do you think that the page should be deleted, given that it is such a major topic in meta-ethics? ScottForschler (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ScottForschler, I don't recall having claimed a right to delete the article, although for worst case scenarios I have been granted that right too if I have to use it. Indeed, our checks and balances usually expect a second admin to to review the case and decline or accept the deletion proposal. AFAIK, I proposed the article for deletion because it is clearly written like an academic paper which is not an appropriate tone for Wikipedia, and hence has all the traits of Original Research which is disallowed. That gave you 7 days to address the issue. And BTW, the proposal had nothing to do with the subject matter, but we are many PhDs here on Wikipedia with a respective high-level cognitive approach to Wikipedia's style guidelines. I'm sorry if I sounded brusque, but as a linguist and expert in communication, I have a habit of replying in tone-for-tone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you dense, Kupdung? /Of course/ you don't recall saying that--you didn't say it. Nor did I claim the right you said I was "talking" as if I had claimed. Get it yet? For I, too, am replying "tone-for-tone," but perhaps you didn't recognize rudeness in the mirror. Again, a deletion request is pretty harsh for a brand-new article whose talk page admits that it is under development. I once read someone suggest that "you don't put a gun to a man's head to ask him the time." If you want to suggest improvements to the article, DO SO. Please don't waste my time, or anyone else's now, having to defend against premature deletion requests on topics you don't understand.ScottForschler (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezumi Harzani Ismail ineligible for PROD

[edit]

Because the article Ezumi Harzani Ismail was deleted via the PROD process in December 2016, it cannot go through proposed deletion again. I've had to remove the tag as a result.

Feel free to nominate the article via AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

[edit]

Are there instances I'm not aware of that an article doesn't have be sourced and can be OR? See this revert. --Atsme📞📧 20:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

but the article is sourced. It does not have inline citations, but there is no requirement that it does. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, the article does need inline citations. See WP:V, which is policy: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." SarahSV (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP and AfC/Work group

[edit]

Hi Kudpung,

In view of the huge and sudden backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed since mid 2016, the WMF has begun a dialogue in a quest to examine the situation and possible solutions. Please consider commenting there if you have not already done so. It is highly recommended to read it all before it becomes too long to follow. The project is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and its talk page.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection

[edit]

An IP who appears to be proxy hopping has repeatedly inserted unsourced and controversial content regarding Kosovo to the article Eurovision Song Contest 2017. Any chance of semi-pp? Wes Wolf Talk 13:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French to English reliable sources

[edit]

I saw your username on a list of French to English translators. I'm trying to create an article for the Intellivision video game Beauty and the Beast, but two of my sources are in French. I was just wondering if you would be able to translate just one part of each source so I can write a reception section. The sources are this and page 37 and 38 of this source. Thanks in advance either way. SL93 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SL93. Please provide a link to the Wikipedia article or its draft page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The start is here - User:SL93/sandbox. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it here - Beauty & the Beast (1982 video game). SL93 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you unreviewed the autopatrolled article. SL93 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, I don't know that I did. As far as I recall, I found the article to be OK and not needing the sources to be translated (not required by policy), and I checked the article as 'patrolled'. If I did anything else, it was an error, and I apologise for any confusion. If you still feel that the sources should at least be partially translated, and if Google Translate doesn't give you something you could clean up, I'll naturally be happy to do it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have noticed it, but it looks like a new section on my talk page was added automatically by you somehow titled "I have unreviewed a page you curated". It's fine though. I originally wanted the sources translated at least somewhat because I wanted to get it ready for DYK, but there isn't much more that I could find for the article so that's all good too. SL93 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SL93, I must have inadvertently clicked on the wrong button. Anyway, all's well that ends well :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franzboas master account

[edit]

Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page curation: suggested improvements page

[edit]

Hi Kudpung, a small matter perhaps but do you think you could leave off telling the community how I created this "blank page" nine months ago listing suggested improvements to Page Curation? At the moment of creation the page did in fact contain one section heading covering three related suggestions [1] as a starting point for others to add issues of current concern. This was in response to your postings that the Foundation were taking a renewed interest in Page Curation and your suggestion to "draw up your own list". I explained this at the time [2] and the page has since been extensively added to. Thank you: Noyster (talk), 20:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Page in process of translation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScienceExplains/sandbox/nataliegrams Kudpung, thank you for moving my page to the correct location. I was not sure where to put it. This is the first time in a long time, maybe ever, that I have translated a page. So I copied the German page to my sandbox. Another editor and I will work on the translation over time (he is fluent in German and I will do the drudge work.) Much of it has already been translated. I guess next time I could take just a little bit at a time from the original-language page and put only the translation in my sandbox. But for sanity and proofreading, my colleague has both languages for now as he translates. Is that OK? ScienceExplains (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Pockets

[edit]

I just noticed the deletion of Pizza Pockets as an expired PROD. I've restored and moved it to my user space as I want to see if I can work on it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather: Please let me know if you need any "hands on" research in order to help develop the article.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo Feel free. I'll be doing some of my own later when I get back to work. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help verify translations of articles from German

[edit]

Hello Kudpung,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

  1. Anna Weidenholzer
  2. AnnenMayKantereit

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, does this interest you at all? I can take you off our list, but we found you on a list of de->en translators. Mathglot (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mathglot. Thank you very much for asking me and reminding me, and I'm sorry I didn't get round to replying. It does interest me of course and over the years I have translated many German and French articles, but at the moment I'm totally tied up with a major, critical Wikipedia-WMF issue and I just don't have time right now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks very much for your reply. I've struck them above, as a reminder that those two are not available and someone else may be working on them. Thanks for all you do. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS opinion

[edit]

Hi, I saw your offer on WP:EA, so....

In the train accident list articles, such as List of rail accidents (1900–29), there are often statements such as:

"Connellsville train wreck near Connellsville, Pennsylvania kills 66 people as the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad's Dequesne Limited runs into timber dropped from a freight train."

I think this should be written in the past tense, i.e. "Connellsville train wreck near Connellsville, Pennsylvania killed 66 people as the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad's Dequesne Limited ran into timber dropped from a freight train."

I made some such changes a while back and was reverted. At the time, I just moved on to something else. All these articles are filled with different usage of tense (not to mention many unsourced entries). WP:MOSTENSE says to use present tense but with exceptions including "past events". So I think I am on solid ground to make such improvements.

I would probably also change this to say ""Connellsville train wreck - 66 people killed near Connellsville, Pennsylvania when the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad's Dequesne Limited ran into timber dropped from a freight train." (for reasons I can't easily explain but that you can probably infer).

Comments? MB

Hi MB, this is an amazing coincidence because only yesterday I was reading the very same kind of list about air crashes and I wondered about that very use of tense. I was actually looking for crashes that were due to clear air turbulence and to see if there are any technological developments to enable radar to measure air density and certain types of sudden wind shear. I do agree that using the present sounds a bit like newspaper headlines and the tone is therefore not very encyclopedic, and although not 100% clear on this point, I think the MoS means use the past tense. That said, it's probably not worth getting steamed up about or into an EW over. Perhaps it's time for you to consider helping out with the backlog at WP:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Life is full of chance happenings. I had never heard of WP:EA before I saw it mentioned at the Help Desk yesterday. US airports started adding special radar to detect wind shear twenty years ago. Perhaps you were looking for something more specific. Saying the tone of "crash kills hundreds" is like a sensational news report is a good way to put it. I'll feel more confident if I make any more such changes. As far as NPP, I'm aware of the backlog and have considered getting involved from time to time. But there is a lot to know, and I'm not sure I have a good enough grasp of things like CSD. There isn't any mechanism for a new patroller to make provisional reviews which are double-checked by someone else, is there? MB 20:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is in fact, MB. Anyone can patrol new pages from the Special:NewPagesFeed and use WP:Twinkle to tag them. All patrolls by unqualified patrollers are checked by qualified patrollers. There is no obligation to tag pages where you are unsure. When you have sufficient experience and have fully read and understood WP:NPR you can request the New Page Reviewer right at WP:PERM which will give you access to the Page Curation tool from the feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a little tagging of new pages this way. But then what? It's difficult to follow up. It could be months before the page is patrolled, and if the patrolller marks the page reviewed it isn't an edit so it doesn't show up on my watchlist, if I put on watchlist. It would be nice if there were some kind of practice mechanism that gave immediate feedback. MB
Yes, it could be months, but you should get into the habit of checking your patrol logs from time to time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "patrol logs". I have a PROD log, and of course a watchlist. This is about twinkle tagging of new unreviewed pages. Do you mean keeping a manual log?

Thanks for noticing !

[edit]

Thanks for noticing the new article I wrote and created, Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? !!!!

What do you think of the article? Sagecandor (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor, I think it's OK. Good luck with your GA nomination! (don't have too many GA running at the same time.) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JOY Interactive

[edit]

Don't delete JOY Interactive page, please. If the page needs further development, I'll finalize it. Reliable sources are indicated. Rubbyn (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Ballet

[edit]

Thank you.

Pstaylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstaylor (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTech term

[edit]

Hi,

I've created a Wikipedia term for the LGBTech NGO organization. This organization is fully voluntary and had a lot of impact in Israel. Other organizations has Wikipedia terms and so it seems natural that it would have a term as well. Can you please elaborate what is required to have a term for the organization just like the rest.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grembek (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grembek, if other NGOs have pages in Wikipedia it's because they meet our criteria for inclusion. Unfortunately, at the present time noting has been written about LGBTech in important national newspapers, magazines, or journals, and it hasn't had a dedicated mention in a TV documentary. An article about a company or an organisation must meet the conditions at WP:ORG, and must be supported by in-depth treatment in WP:Reliable Sources. I have checked, and your organisation does not meet these requirements and possibly will not any time soon. Sorry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry about article

[edit]

Hi! Thank you so much for your time. I recently created an article that got deleted - I understand that I am new to using wikipedia, and I think I published it by accident before it was complete. 

I would really like to start a wikipedia page about this musical group, because I think it is significant to the community, it is a professional music group that publishes and albums worldwide, but is made up of young people with disabilities. It is a well know group in Canada, and its purpose is to raise awareness for autism and to teach communities about autism and those affected by it. Here is an article I found about a similar group to ours - an article about a musical group that travels and raises awareness and funds for a cause.

I am still learning how to use Wikipedia. I would like more time to learn how to use it, and more time to create the article. Sorry for my lack of knowledge on this topic. Please allow me to have more time to create a good article on this topic.

Please consider allowing me another chance to create this article. Please accept my apologies for the confusion and lack of understanding. I would love another chance to create this!

Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoleprovost (talk • contribs) 06:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

[edit]

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Leica L-Mount, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: an EC while patrolling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Ballet

[edit]

Question from a novice to an expert. When I create a new article as i did the above, there is no way of automatically adding links to it from the 20 (estimate) other articles that mention it. I have to find them and add the links myself. Correct? Pstaylor

HI Pstaylor, Correct, there is no automatic method. First you need to run a search for articles that mention it but I was unable to find any that relate to this particular Metropolitan Ballet. However, what you can do is include a mention in all the articles that you linked your article to, such as you did for Beriosova. To sign your messages correctly, add 4 tildes (~~~~) or click the signature button in the tool bar of the editing window. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Ballet

[edit]

Thanks. Pstaylor (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

[edit]

Do you think I'm ready for rollback? That'd help me fight vandalism, plus there's no one at WP:CVUA (and hasn't been for like 1 month now) x'D. (Comment by ⚞Lj⚟ (t·c)) on 05:0consider 5, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. Try applying at WP:PERM and see what happens. You should also changing your signature for something that is readable and which identifies you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this any better? (Comment by Lj (t·c)) on 20:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you doing some vandalism fighting. Install Twinkle - it basically includes rollback. Works great for vandalism fighting. Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plizzari

[edit]

He played in 2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup. Deleted isn't correct.--John95 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I open proceedings to keep the page?--John95 (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John95, procedings have been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Plizzari where the Wikipedia will debate whether or not the article is to be kept. You are welcome to comment there but your arguments should be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines for notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion stats

[edit]

Came through on T166269 right as I was about to go to sleep. You can see the data at User:MusikAnimal (WMF)/NPP analysis. About what was expected. More analysis to come I'm sure, but wanted to let you know since I knew you would be interested and I don't think you're subscribed to that task. TonyBallioni (talk) 0/6:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Impressive - near perfect 80/20 collaboration between the success of a page and autoconfirmed. It also falls in line with what I'm seeing reviewing hundreds of AfC submissions. A little bit of experience goes a very long way toward success. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPP

[edit]

Noticed you requested me to stop doing new page reviews due to some mistake I'm doing, but I can't a related edit done by you that was intended to fix my mistake. Mind helping me out and indicating what I am doing incorrectly? Thanks. Jumpytoo Talk 08:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked to stop patrolling new pages. If you stop, you won't make any mistakes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but I want to know the mistake I did that lead you to post the warning. Otherwise, I might do the same mistake while doing other related tasks like vandalism removal. Jumpytoo Talk 08:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpytoo, The warning was because in spite if being told to stop patrolling, you continued. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else? I'm willing to learn, feel free to nitpick yesterday/today's NPP calls if you like. But if I'm just being told to stop because I haven't contributed in a while, it makes me worry I would still lack experience if I return to NPP later. Jumpytoo Talk 09:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll get plenty of experience through normal editing or vandalism patrol. That's how everyone else does it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, it's just that the message said I was violating something in WP:NPP, which suggests I was continuing to do something wrong that causes disruption. If it's only an experience issue, please don't scare me with such a warning. Do you have any other feedback regarding my edits? Any mistakes you can discover will help improve my accuracy during vandal patrol. Thanks. Jumpytoo Talk 14:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Venturoli

[edit]

Hi Kudpung,

thanks for your note about the Giacomo Venturoli page. I am so sorry for the waste of your time. I thought I saved it in my sandbox!! I fixed it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiara Consonni (BEIC) (talk • contribs) 09:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put this together. For all the noise and excessive scrutiny I was surprised at the result. [3] Thanks for your kindness. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of the new article Celtic Thunder (United States)

[edit]

There are two bands called "Celtic Thunder". For a long time our information about the U.S. band has been included as a section in the article on the Irish band, which makes no sense. I began a separate article about the U.S. band, but, to preserve the edit history of the previous material, I did so by splitting it.

The previous section was not in good WP format and was lacking in citations. That's why I said in edit summary that it needs cleanup! I'm in the process of improving it. I request that you remove the speedy deletion proposal.

I don't see how else to do this. If we userfy the material and restore it as a new article when establishing notability is clearer, then the edit history will be lost and the rights of contributors to the Celtic Thunder article will be violated. It seems simpler for you to remove the speedy and take another look after the weekend. JamesMLane t c 10:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as you apparently remain determined to block the normal wiki process of incremental improvements, I'll revert my edits. I won't return to this subject unless and until I have the time to create an article that's practically perfect ab initio. This is totally silly but my experience cautions me against getting into a squabble with someone whose priority is deleting. It's just too much of a time sink.
You might as well delete that draftspace page you created. I'm not going to edit it and I doubt that anyone else will. JamesMLane t c 13:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JamesMLane - Your comments are totally inappropriate. The correct action was taken and it provided you specifically with the opportunity to complete the article without it being deleted. From your background I would have expected better collaboration, a better understanding of our rules and guidelines, and better respect for the volunteers here who uphold the quality of this encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, you and I disagree about what the correct action was, how to collaborate, the rules and guidelines, and how best to uphold the quality of this encyclopedia. I explained my reasons. If you think that expressing an opinion contrary to yours is "totally inappropriate", then I'll just have to live with your disapproval. JamesMLane t c 02:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion reason

[edit]

You beat me by seconds in deleting Phoebe sava. However, you gave the deletion reason as G13 (abandoned article for creation), as can be seen in this log entry. That must be a mistake, as it was not an AfC submission. Probably A7? You may like to undelete and re-delete to put the log right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson. Total slip of a mouse James. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined

[edit]

I've declined the speedy deletion nomination of MLHLND. The author significantly expanded it after your tag to include a significant number of sources sufficient to avoid speedy deletion. (This is why we should wait more than 4 minutes to apply notability tags.) I can't evaluate the validity of the sources (most of them are blocked by my office firewall), so an AFD may still be appropriate. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61 - This is why your help in reducing the 21,000 backlog and supporting our request for a proper landing page for new users and the requests for Curation features would be much appreciated. The delay in tagging, except for A1 and A3 (in the guidelines and tutorial), is entirely at patrollers' discretion. (WP:DTTR) - I co-wrote the tutorial ;) See also: WP:KNPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re Proposed deletion of Non-relativistic spacetime

[edit]

Sorry about posting an article in such an incomplete state. I would normally have developed it much further in my sandbox before posting it, but I was having a heated discussion with another editor, and the stub was to say to him, "Hey, there is plenty to write about this subject!"

No harm done except that I forced User:JamesBWatson to step in and add references that I should have added myself. That's a little embarrassing.

I'll flesh out the stub as rapidly as I can in the next few days.

Anyway, cheers! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Yoo-jung (singer)

[edit]

Hi Kudpung, this user User:Magicsk8r123 has reverted a redirect, twice for an article which was redirected per a WP:AFD discussion. scope_creep (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, I've full protected the redirect. If Magicsk8r123 steps out of line just once more, let me know and I'll put them on a very short leash for a while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kudpung. scope_creep (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Su-jeong

[edit]

Hi Kudpung, another K-pop artist redirect has been reverted by a fan, or their marketing agency guy. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the history but I haven't got time to sift through and locate where it was unredirected. if you can send me a link to the diff I'll do what has to be done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Xenios

[edit]

Hi Kudpung, In this article there are two 'citation needed' claims. The first is a reference to my undergraduate degree (Bachelor of Fine Arts / Biology) from Salem State University and the second is the reference to working as a student under Aaron Siskind and Harry Calahan.

The first 'citation needed' - When I received my BFA degree was in 1972 and the school was called 'Salem State College' and recently changed to 'Salem Sate University.' I am not sure how one would cite having a degree? I have a MFA from RISD (Rhode Island School of Design) and they have a alumni page where the fact can be referenced, but the now, Salem State University does not. It has been over 35 years since I graduated and several things have changed. I did find this link (http://alumnius.net/salem_state_universi-8512-16) which refers to me as an alumni at Salem State. (It in alphabetical order and you must scroll down towards the bottom.)

The second 'citation needed' - I referred to Aaron Siskind and Harry Calahan as my teachers. They were both professors of photography at RISD. I studied under them for two years while earning my my MFA in Photography from RISD. In 1972, Aaron and Harry were the only two professors of photography at RISD along with assistant professor Paul Krott.

I hope this is helpful and that you can consider removing the citations needed. Thank you, andrew xenios Andrewxenios (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Andrewxenios (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewxenios (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion for Bossier chamber of commerce

[edit]

Hi Kudpung Thanks for reviewed my article Bossier chamber of commerce , I make my first article and you have marked for deletion. for some reasons 1. not notable 2. Written like an advertisement

This is a nonprofit organization that works for Bossier and Caddo Parish people.They works for their growth and development and many people impact from this organization.This organization works with government as well as military people.That's the reason i thought this organization is notable for encyclopedia. In your review you said article looks like an advertisement then please give some tips how i describe/write the article .so in future when i write some other article i follow your points and make better articles.

Thanks RamPrince (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RamPrince, please see WP:My first article, and if you need any help please ask at WP:The Tea House. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Jim Denley' proposed deletion

[edit]

Dear Kudpung,

The references were lacking when I created the page 'Jim Denley'. It now has better references and hopefully it is ok? Happy to add more if needed but don't want to pad it out.

I have also quoted from those references about the importance of Denley in Australian improvised music. Hopefully this clarifies, and sorry I did this entry in stages.

cheers

Wouflan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wouflan (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

proposed Jim Denley entry deletion

[edit]

Dear Kudpung,

The references were lacking when I created the page 'Jim Denley'. It now has better references and hopefully it is ok? Happy to add more if needed but don't want to pad it out.

I have also quoted from those references about the importance of Denley in Australian improvised music. Hopefully this clarifies, and sorry I did this entry in stages.

cheers

Wouflan

PS. sorry if you have already received this email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wouflan (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bodkin Wines

[edit]

Hello Kudpung,

I would like to know the reason behind the deletion of Bodkin Wines. I am new to Wikipedia and felt I followed the Wikipedia steps to creating a new page. I would appreciate your feedback and knowledge on creating a page. If you could please get back to me with my mistakes and how to fix them, that would be great.

Thank you, User:Marissamachado (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marissamachado. This article was deleted nearly three weeks ago. Unfortunately, you probably did not read the rules you were linked to before creating your article. Wikipedia is not a place for simply listing every company that ever existed. Any article that does not clearly demonstrate how the company or its product is highly important or significant (e.g. Apple, Microsoft, Ford, (per WP:ORG), is a form of promotion/publicity (per WP:G11): "The wine is reasonably priced, with exceptional scores. In the past four years, the Wine Enthusiast scored 16 of their wines.", and will be deleted. If you winery were one the famous producers such as perhaps Domaine du Vieux Lazaret, located just 9 kilometres from my own vineyard (which is not mentioned in Wikipedia), then there may be grounds for inclusion. If you still require further information, please contact Seraphimblade, the other admin who carried our the actual deletion after further examination of my observation that Bodkin Wines does not meet our requirements for articles. I rather regret that it will not meet our criteria any time soon until numerous dedicated in-depth articles have been dedicated to it in the mainstream press such as TV documentaries or the Wine Spectator and has received major awards for wines. 'Point scores' or fleeting mentions on wine magazines, blogs, or websites don't count towards WP:NOTABILITY. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: Marcomgirl

[edit]

Being a paid editor is not grounds for blocking, if the user has disclosed properly, as you acknowledge this user has. Neither is being created by a paid editor reason for deleting an otherwise valid article That is the current consensus. You are welcome to try to change it. I would be included to oppose such a change. But the current policy has been discussed by many editors, and I do not see either of us changing it in the near future. Please withdraw your implied threat to block Marcomgirl and delete the articles created by that user. I am carefully avoiding pinging that user in this msg. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry David, but there are paid editors and there are paid editors. Some editors falsely believe that declaring their paid editing gives them the right and free rein to exploit Wikipedia for their own gains. That's not the way it's supposed to work. Marcomgirl (Marketing Communication) is a paid editor whose only concern is that her clients' articles be referenced as quickly as possible in Google. She's a professional SEO/PR agent. I am reluctant to offer any of my unpaid time to help here. Even good faith has its limits - I do not support paid editing with my voluntary free time. I donate thousands of hours of my free time and my $$ to the Wikipedia quality, maintenance, and keeping it free of people making money out of our hard work. If John from Idegon and Softlavender believe I have gone OTT (as I had already asked them before you made your comment), let them chime in here and if they think I have overstepped the mark, I'll retract, but please note that in the meantime a further editor has PRODed the concerned article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't ask you to contribute any time to Marcomgirl. I do ask you not to make threats that are against policy. I want you to know that should you move beyond threat to action, I will reverse any such block unless it has a reason beyond "paid editor"; a reason compliant with the blocking policy. I understand that this editor is a RR professional, and the contributions of such an editor must be treated with caution. I understand that you would prefer that we block all such editors on sight. That has been proposed and not gained consensus, and I for one think it would be unwise. Thank you for letting me know about the PROD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it wasn't PRODed, it was brought to AfD, a better choice in my view, to let a true consensus develop. A PROD would obviously not have been uncontested. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, please avoid the authoritative tone when addressing me, and please AGF, and don't threaten me with wheelwarring - it's against policy. We are both admins here, and equals, although one of us may perhaps have significantly more experience and continuous collaboration on Wikipedia. The only other difference being that you support paid editing and I don't. I don't know what English language region you come from, but as a professional linguist I do not see anything resembling a threat in my communications. I now consider this issue closed. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that undoing a block -- after careful consideration and discussion with the blocking admin -- is not wheel-warring. Reinstating a block after another admin has unblocked is. I am well aware that you are an admin with long experience. You have done many useful things for the project, and i am also well aware of that. In the past we have sometimes disagreed, and sometimes agreed. I was referring to this edit and specifically to I am more inclined to block your account and delete all the articles you have submitted. I would call that an implied threat. It may be that you were merely expressing your view that paid editing should not be allowed, but it still sounds like an implied threat to me. It may be that you would find a consensus to support such a block -- one never knows what the community will do. But to the best of my understanding there is no such consensus now.
I would not say that I support paid editing. I regard it as impossible to prevent, and I therefore think it is better to work with such paid editors as will follow our published terms of service than to try to obstruct them even when they do comply. But more than that, I support the current policies and consensus, which, as I understand it, says that paid editors who properly disclose their status should be treated like all other editors, in accord with their actual behavior. Should that consensus and those policies change, I will comply with it, whether I agree or not.
Perhaps i overreacted. If so, I am sorry. Can you see how your statement, quoted above, seemed to me like a threat to block? If that was not your intent, please consider how it could be read. If you still feel my comments were improper or overly arrogant or authoritative in tone, I will try to modify my tone in future. While I realize it was mostly a rhetorical question, I come from the North American region, specifically from the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States. I am not a professional linguist, although i do have a significant amateur interest in language and linguistics (originally stimulated by reading Tolkien as an adolescent many years ago). I hope I have made myself clearer this time. Frankly I don't care that much about the PR editor here -- i do care very much about the policy and the principles behind it. I find too many people lately have been treating properly disclosed paid editors as outlaws. Articles created by such editors have been speedy deleted when they do not fit any of the WP:CSD. There was a case at WP:DRV recently where such a deletion was overturned. I think this is unwise, and it seems to me that it violates the principles of Wikipedia, which I also have put much time and effort into supporting. Perhaps all of that (none of which involved you personally) had something to do with my reaction to your comment. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I defend Wikipedia, and our right not to have our voluntary work abused, as ferociously as a lioness her cubs. I'm sometimes outspoken and don't mince my words, but without assuming superiority over my colleagues (the WMF is another current matter which you may or may not wish to agree with,but your opinion would be highy valued). Unlike some, my extremely busy admin agenda is without a blemish - 84,000 edits, 100s of articles created, 9,143 pages deleted, only 48 restored and not one due to incorrect admin action or even minor error; 88% accuracy at AfD with 100s of AfD closed or commented; 1,102 users blocked and not one single block contested.; 26,727 pages on my watchlist. When an admin is as busy as I am, naturally the work invites criticism, but one takes it in one's stride - it's like taking the sticks and stones as a politician.
I respect our policies - I have even crafted some of them - but it does not always mean I believe obstinately in them. I do believe in IAR which means fully recognising that Marcomgirl with her COI declaration is gaming the system. For that, I have zero tolerance. I have a respected reputation (or so I believe) to defend, and although I am now of advanced age and my time to go on Wikipedia probably predictable, I'm certainly not going to leave this project in disgrace. With all due respect, David, while I have always admired your engagement, perhaps the best policy as an admin is to let those admins whose work is really less serious and reliable dig their own holes and let the other admins get on with their work until it requires escalation to ANI or Arbcom. Sysops like you and I have too much to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that DES, while no doubt acting in good faith, has mistaken what Kudpung said. Here is the relevant quote in its entirety: "Marcomgirl, as you are a (correctly) declared paid editor, and as your major concern is that the articles you create be indexed for search engines, it is clear that promotional use of Wkipedia for your clients is your goal. I am more inclined to block your account and delete all the articles you have submitted." (My emphasis.) Leaving aside the question of whether that is a "threat" or not, my reading of what Kudpung said is that he was inclined to block because "your major concern is that the articles you create be indexed for search engines", and he cited the facts that Marcomgirl is a paid editor and that her major concern is that the articles she creates be indexed for search engines as evidence of that promotional intent. That is not at all the same thing as saying that he might block her because she is a paid editor. Blocking someone because he or she is a paid editor is, as DESiegel rightly says, contrary to policy, but blocking someone for editing for the purpose of promotion isn't, and editing for "search engine optimisation" is editing for promotion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I received a "whisperback" to this page today, but I don't see any new comments addressed to me or issues that I have been involved with, so i suppose that it is directing my attention to the most recent comments in this discussion. I am therefore going to respond to the comments of Kudpung and of JamesBWatson jointly, as they seem to be in fairly close agreement.
    JamesBWatson and I looked at the same comment, but saw a different emphasis and tone in it. To me the active and most important part was I am more inclined to block your account and delete all the articles you have submitted. You both argue above that such a block would, if it were to be applied, be justified because Marcomgirl is not only a declared paid editor, but is editing promotionally, and has little or no concern for anything except the Google ranking of articles about her clients. (...your major concern is that the articles you create be indexed for search engines... It is true that Marcomgirl did ask why an article she had created was not (yet) indexed by Google. But I have seen this same question asked by many editors at the Teahouse, most of whom are not paid PR types. It seems that many people now think that Google is the only way to find a page on the net, and that a page not google-indexed is not really "live". Indeed many editors who have created a new page and tried to find it again via google believe that it must have been deleted or moved, and ask why this was done. In the light of this experience, i did not see Marcomgirl's question about google indexing as evidence that this was her major concern, although obviously it was a concern of hers.
    Both of you describe Marcomgirl as "gaming the system". I do not agree. Our terms of use, and the wording of the most recent RfC on paid editing, command paid editors to disclose in accordance with WP:PAID, and as I see it invite those who do disclose to edit on the same terms as unpaid editors with a WP:COI. I can't see that accepting that invitation is gaming the system -- If we want to absolutely bar PR types we should say so, and we don't currently. But if most editors or even most admins act as you both seem to be urging above, the effect will be to invite such editors in, only to toss them out for accepting the invitation. The result of that will inevitably be for such editors to conceal their COI and paid status. This will lead to an endless and futile game of whack-a-mole, and to reduced transparency, in my view. Changing our consensus to bar editing by paid PR types would have much the same effect. I would rather work with those paid editors, even PR professionals, that are willing to disclose and follow the declared rules and procedures, even if only for their own purposes. You make much of Marcomgirl's promotional intent, and no doubt that is present. It is my view that intent matters less than results. Many people who create valid articles have at least partly a promotional intent. As long as the topic is notable, and the article itself is neutral, or is edited to be neutral, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with articles that are biased or inaccurate, and violate our policies and guidelines. I think that simply deleting all articles by PR types, even if they show some promotional tendencies, would be a mistake, and lead to the whack-a-mole situation described above. I also think it would not accord with current deletion policy.
    I take it that Kudpung does not currently plan to block Marcomgirl as suggested in the comment dissected above. I urge you not to do so, unless she engages in more clearly blockable actions than those discussed above. I hope I have made my views and the reasons for them clear. I doubt that I have persuaded either of you, although I could hope to. If you or either of you wish to discuss this further I am willing, or I am willing to drop the matter as it stands. I do respect both of your contributions and experience here, and do not desire to be unfriendly, even when I disagree with your views. I apologize for the initial tone of my remarks above -- I now think i read a subjunctive statement as a statement of active intent. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitated before deciding to post here again, as a rather minor incident has already been given rather a lot of coverage, and perhaps it is close to time to move on, but I decided to attempt to clear up a couple of misreadings of my post. David, twice in your post above you attributed to me views expressed by Kudpung, although I did not express either of those views, nor even comment on them. You said, addressing Kudpung and myself, "You both argue above that such a block would, if it were to be applied, be justified ... " and "Both of you describe Marcomgirl as 'gaming the system' ". On the first of these, I did not argue "that such a block ... would be justified" in this case: I merely attempted to point out that (1) on reading the remark about a block in the context of the whole sentence in which it appeared Kudpung seemed to me to have been referring to a block for promotional editing, not, as you thought, to a block for paid editing, and (2) blocks for promotional editing, unlike blocks for paid editing, are supported by policy. I made no comment on whether such a block would be justified in this case. For what it's worth, I do think that her editing has been somewhat promotional, but not enough so to justify a block. On the second point, I said nothing at all relating in any way to Kudpung's comment about "gaming the system", and I am at a loss to see what I wrote that could have been taken that way. I didn't mention it for the simple reason that it was not remotely relevant to the single point I was writing about, namely the distinction between promotion blocks and paid editing blocks. However, since you have now raised the question, I do not see her as "gaming the system", because although she does seem to be doing what Kudpung suggests, I see no reason to doubt that she is doing it in perfectly good faith, which is not what "gaming the system" means to me. (In fact in my view one of the biggest faults in the way new editors are treated is that many established editors, including the substantial majority of administrators, assume that all new editors who edit in promotional ways must be acting maliciously and in bad faith, whereas I am convinced that more than 90% of them are acting in perfectly good faith, and simply don't know about Wikipedia policies, as we all didn't when we started editing.) It seems, David, that seeing in what I wrote a defence of some of what Kudpung had written you assumed that I was expressing agreement with the whole of what he had written, which was very far from the case. On some of the relevant points I am, in fact, much closer to your view than to Kudpung's. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JamesBWatson, I apologize that in responding jointly to your comments and those of Kudpung I apparently conflated your views, assuming more agreement between you than was warranted. Thank you for clarifying that. Please read my remarks above to apply only to Kudpung when I refer to views that only Kudpung expressed in this discussion (although no doubt others share them). I agree with your comments about promotionalism and frequent lack of malice. I will say that in the case of Marcomgirl I don't think there is the degree of confusion we often see in new editors. I think Marcomgirl has read our policies, and is editing as favorably toward her clients as those policies permit, or perhaps a bit more. I think this is only to be expected under our current policy and consensus on paid editing, and that to condemn someone for acting as the letter of policy permits is unwise. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel Well, I agree with every word of that, despite the fact that I feel perhaps as strongly as Kudpung that we would be better off without paid editing at all. There are several policies that I don't totally agree with, but, as you say, we shouldn't condemn anyone for following policy, no matter what personal opinion we have of that policy. Anyway, perhaps it really is time for all three of us to move on from this, as there are more important things to spend our time and effort on. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What David says is partly correct, James, and that is why the consensus was not to ban paid editing outright. To do so would simply force the spammers underground. There are also a few, just a few types of article which are not promotional but which are better for some professional editing. However, there are articles that are blatant advertorial and there are those where the biography subject says 'Get me on Wikipedia' but which cunningly escape deletion if not detection. Marcomgirl's time on Wikipedia is probably limited because from the current state of her talk page she is likely to be blocked sooner or later for persistently creating inappropriate articles. That said, I have never been an admin with a twitchy trigger finger - most the blocks I have ever made are totally blatant spammers, vandals, UAA, or simply carrying out ANI consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with almost all of that. There is a significant element of truth in saying that having a "no paid editing" policy would "force the spammers underground". On the other hand, the real spammers are already underground, and while some of the more open paid editors would go underground, some would probably go away. Also, blatantly promotional editing can be dealt with anyway, whether paid or unpaid, good faith or bad faith, and I don't see any reason to think that the amount of promotional but not blatantly promotional editing would increase if we had a policy against paid editing. To me, the best argument in favour of permitting paid editing is that it would be unhelpful to say that someone working for a business or other organisation would not be able to make uncontroversial updates and corrections, such as replacing the name of an outgoing CEO with the new one, or correcting the spelling of the address, and of course not all of them are as trivial as those examples. I suppose when I wrote above "we would be better off without paid editing at all" that was an overstatement, but I do think we would be better off without people paying to have articles about themselves, their businesses, etc created or edited to suit their preferences. Not realistically possible, of course, whatever policy says but that doesn't mean I have to be happy with the situation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cloud Access Security Broker

[edit]

I would like to accept this draft. It seems to resolve the issues that resulted in previous deletion. Based on my searches, it appears to be a notable topic. Create protection needs to be removed before I can accept. You were the last administrator to touch this article so hopefully you can help. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, because you are asking, I generally have no objection, but as this was salted because it was a persistent recreation - demonstrated again by the draft submission - I would like to obtain consensus from at least one of the other two deleting admins, JamesBWatson and Tokyogirl79. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two reasons why I deleted the article were copyright infringement and promotion, and I don't see that either of those problems applies now, so I have no objection to removing the protection. Tokyogirl79's deletion was because the creator of the article blanked it because of copyright infringement, so it seems unlikely that she will object (though of course that is for her to say, not me). It therefore seems to me that it's entirely up to you, Kudpung. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, Kvng. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ~Kvng (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Series (mathematics) – appeal

[edit]

Hi, Kudpung. In my latest edit on Talk:Series (mathematics) 16 May 2017, I announced to be off for 'at least a couple of weeks'. And in the Edit-summary I wrote 'Leave'.   I expect that from now on (22 June 2017) I’ll be able to pay attention to Wikipedia-matters again.
Shortly after my leave, a number of edits on WP:ANI finally led to your Topic Ban for six monthes for me. I feel it as quite unsatisfactionary that this ban is imposed in a situation where I had no opportunity to react on negative judges. I should like to hear from you: did you be aware of my absence from 16 May on?

Please allow me to give my delayed defence here:
1.   On 'warring' by me.   My reverts on 24 April, 25 April, 28 April, 28 April, 6 May and 6 May, followed on a presentation on Talk-page, 16 April of a new introduction to the article. And on my repeated requests on Talk-page and in Edit-summaries to formulate concrete objections against specific parts of it. Resulting in nothing more than unspecified qualifications as “POV” and “OR”. Or “Edits lack consensus” , "All Hesselp’s considerations show that he has not understood what a series is.", "Trolling", and “Walls of text” (in fact: lists of arguments and sources).
2.   In the discussion on WP:ANI 10 May, D.Lazard wrote “not only WP:OR but also blatantly wrong” in a comment on my "the word series is primarily used as adjective ..." in the opening sentence of my proposed introduction. Lazard’s judgement is in sharp contrast with the "Infinite series representations for...." and "This new way of representing functions...." in the introduction of the chapter 'Infinite Series' in Swokowski's Calculus (added to the References of the article by this edit).
3.   As a result of my edits on Talk-page, my critics agreed upon removal of the label 'Definition' from the text of the article. Admitting that they could not find a way to define a 'mathematical object' named series, but that this word
- used as an adjective: refers to a specific/important way to represent numbers or functions of a more complex kind; and
- used as a noun: refers to a combination of symbolic expressions for a sequence and its summation function (such a combination being an expression for the 'sum', in case of a summable sequence).
4.   On 8 May 2017 I copied (and re-copied after undoings by others) a number of edits posted 6 May 2017 on WP:ANI, to Talk:Series (mathematics). Because I considered several parts in it as relevant for readers of that Talk-page. Without any attempt to discuss with me this copying, my action was undone. Isn't it quite unusual to remove someone's posts from a talk-page?
5.   On 12 May 2017 I copied (and re-copied after undoings by others) an edit by D.Lazard from WP:ANI to Talk:Serie (mathematics). My refutations of Lazard’s two critical remarks, I saw as relevant for the discussion on Talk-page. Again, Lazard's edit, as well as my comments on it, were removed repeatedly.

My question: I ask you, Kudpung, to judge (once more) to which extend my attempts to discuss the subject and to improve the description and the sourcing in the article of what can be meant by "series", has been 'disruptive', compared with the way in which most of my opponents reacted (see many reverts without any substantial motivation per Edit-summary or on Talk-page). And, having read my remarks above and considering my absence during the ban procedure, to reconsider your topic ban on me.   Regards, -- Hesselp (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hesselp. Unfortunately, I alone cannot reverse a community consensus. In this instance, I was not a judge; I am simply the admin who evaluated the consensus of the discussion and pronounced its conclusion. I was therefore not required to investigate any background or article talk page comments. I suggest that your best course of action would be to copy the essentials of your request above to WP:AN (not ANI) where such matters are normally processed. As I closed the ANI discussion, I will not be offering an opinion on the matter. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung. Thank you for your quick response. But it leaves me with the following questions:
a.   In this message to me on 28 May, you wrote: "You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.". Why did you mention this, as it turns out now that this is not a possibility for me?
b.   Did you miss my question to you in sentence 6 of my message earlier this evening?   I repeat: "I should like to hear from you: did you be aware of my absence from 16 May on?".
c.   Is it true that my absence (starting 16 May) during the ban procedure and consequently the impossibility for me to defend myself, if known to you, should NOT have been enough reason for you to postpone your decision to close and to impose a Topic ban on me?
I understand that you cannot influence what you see as 'community consensus'. But it is more difficult for me to understand that you cannot reverse your decisions in case they appear to be taken on a wrong moment.
-- Hesselp (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hesselp,
a)"You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page)" this is a standard template reply. You have appealed to me and I gave you my answer.
b)"did you be aware of my absence from 16 May on?" I have answered this. I was not aware and I was not obliged to be - or make any research beyond the discussion at ANI.
c) My close was not made at the wrong moment. I correctly evaluated the community's decision when a clear consensus had been reached and informed you of it. If you believe there is going to be a controversy over your edits, the onus is on you to be available when the discussion takes place, otherwise it will be heard in absentia.
Now please read my recommendations above for appealing your case. Thank you.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, thanks for your clear answers on my three questions. Although I don't see the need to decide in absentia of the accused, in a non-urgent case like this.   I plan to write to WP:AN the following text, but before I want to ask you to control it on incorrections or missing essentials (in your opinion).
Block review, Hesselp, Series (mathematics)
I/Hesselp ask for reviewing a block (a topic ban) in the following situation:
Based on this ANI-discussion a topic ban has been imposed on me/Hesselp by admin Kudpung on 28 May.
After some correspondence on User talk:Hesselp (28 May) and User talk:Kudpung (22 June, 22 June, 22 June, 23 June), this admin confirmed that he hadn’t noticed my/Hesselp’s announcement  "Caused by personal circumstances I've to tell that I leave by now Wikipedia for at least a couple of weeks"  in this ANI-edit on 21 May; with edit-summary: "User:Hesselp: has gone on break". (On 16 May the same announcement I/Hesselp made already at the end of this edit in Talk:Series (mathematics) ).
I feel it as unfair that five days after my announcement of absence, four of the participants in the ongoing series-discussion and two others, insisted on a ban for me - without the possibility for me to defend myself. And secondly I see it as unfair that an admin, after noticing my absence, doesn’t see this as enough reason to lift the half-year-ban and to open the opportunity to continue a two-sided discussion on the validity of arguments for a ban.
-- Hesselp (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hesselp I've already told you what I can do and what I can't do. You are welcome to go to AN to discuss the possibilities of your ban being lifted. However, in view of the growing number of complaints on your talk page, if you insist on putting your own spin on the circumstances and and taking things out of context as you are doing above, you risk not being taken seriously. Be aware that there are a lot of highly experienced admins and users who debate such cases and not only will your appeal not be met with sympathy, but you will likely incur the very opposite to the lifting of the ban which you hope to achieve. Now I have given you all the advice I can. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPR

[edit]

Can you please take a look at GoNoodle (company).I smell promotion and typical PR bolstered by unreliable spammy sources.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric
Well, this's for the follow-up.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 11:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about moving articles

[edit]

Kudz - I was wondering if NPP have page mover privileges (to Draft Space) or must we make a request for it? I was also wondering about our boundaries for renaming. The basis for my question is evidenced at Westbury Road Ent.. I just created a TP for it and made a suggestion here. I'd much rather do what needs to be done while I'm there instead of tagging, etc. I've never been a big fan of hit & tag if there's something I can do to fix the problem. Atsme📞📧 17:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atsme, sounds silly, but I can't actually remember. I believe the 'Page Mover' right allows certain editors to make a move over redirect, or delete the redirect created by a move, or something like that. It's not generally needed for moving to drafts, and moves always leave a redirect behind unless surpressed by an admin.Install the 'move to draft' script in your .js page and see if it works. It works perfectly for me and is very well designed by Evad37, a volunteer, for something that being an obvious necessity for the Page Curation tool, should of course have been a Foundation task, but once more, despite multiple requests, not prioritised by the team led by DannyH (WMF). Copy the following code, click here, then paste: 
importScript( 'User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js' ); // Backlink: User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js
to your js page. Used intelligently, 'Move to Draft' is one of the most valuable shortcuts in the work of a New Page Patroller, but the WMF is not interested. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung It works perfectly, thank you! The following is an example of what's going on in more instances than not - Article was denied so it appears the IP registered and moved the article into mainspace anyway. I just moved it into Draft Space. Perhaps the user should be made aware that what was done is unacceptable but accompany the reprimand with encouragement to seek help in the Tea Room. Atsme📞📧 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Page mover rights allow one to suppresses the creation of redirects. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were not canvessed for this but may be interested as he is talking about you. [4] Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudz, one more thing - the article I moved to Draft Space earlier today (which was previously declined in AfC by others a few times was moved back into article space by the new user who refuses to accept that the article is not ready. I can't seem to find the AfC entry that shows the # of times it was declined in AfC but I did manage to find the last one. Not sure what else to do in this case. Atsme📞📧 00:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found the link here which shows how many times it was declined. Talk about a time sink. And another note - the creator and the editor who moved it out of Draft Space are one in the same; therefore they have 2 accounts.Atsme📞📧 00:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, IP: 96.41.37.87 is User:NBA126. Geolocates to Motebello, California, so check if their edits have anything to do with articles that may be related to that area. Although it is allowed to have multiple accounts under certain conditions, there is no logical reason for deliberately editing both under an account and an IP address. There are strong reasons also to assume a probability that User:TootyBoy is also the same editor. Things you can do: start a SPI (I’ll probably support it) after checking the overlap of their edits with the tool; tag Westbury Road Ent. for deletion A7, but be sure you can make it stick - the plethora of sources (typical of the editing of these three editors) which you'll have to check individually, are classical Internet barrel scraping in the belief that simply a list of sources add up to notability, which they very often don’t. Many of those sources will probably prove to be insignificant, irrelevant, social media, or even to commercial download sites. Chances are high that one of those accounts will remove the CSD tag. If they do, restore it. If they remove it again, warn them. If their behaviour continues to be disruptive, let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will get an early start on it tomorrow - already did some extensive online research trying to find legit mention of the label, and all I found was passing mention in Vanity Fair which simply states In the music business, Rihanna is a powerful woman; she recently made a deal to own all of her past and future master recordings, and from now on she’ll release her music through her company, Westbury Road. I also checked other sites all of which are promotional (some of which are editable like WP), including this one and others that link to it - all of which include Wikipedia in their list of promo sites. Ugh!! Also, Westbury Road Entertainment is/has been a redirect to Rihanna, as it should be, which explains why the new article was named Westbury Road Ent. - it's nothing but a promo page. Atsme📞📧 04:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the talk page. Most of the sources in article don't mention the company. Those that do are directory entries or mere mentions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Forecast Attainment

[edit]

Dear Kudpung,

Thank you for your comments and patience. Forecast Attainment is a formula that practitioners and academics use. Wikipedia is a great place to reference it so we can refine and discuss.

That said, I'm ok with moving this page under forecasting, but complete deletion would be inappropriate as Forecast Attainment is citable.

The supply chain discipline on Wikipedia needs some correction in general. Looking at the "Supply Chain" itself, the external references don't work. (These are now fixed)

Thank you for allowing discussion, and open to hearing more your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Keithbcarter (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing

[edit]

I happened to notice that you mentioned, while discussing an article about an apparently non-notable topic, and a possible sock, that there is no logical reason for deliberately editing both under an account and an IP address. While it may well be that in this case the person is doing this to avoid scrutiny, or for other less than legitimate reasons, I think that statement is rather too broad. I myself used to edit from an IP when i was in a public location with a possibly insecure connection, until I created an alternate account for this purpose. Also, during periods when i was not logging in at all, I sometimes edited from an IP address instead. And there was a period when I would log in or not as it felt convenient, all with no intent to do anything nefarious. Moreover, I have found on a number of occasions that I log in, make some edits, and somehow my login expires and one or more edits are saved from an IP address unintentionally. Indeed this became common enough that I added JavaScript to change the color of the save button when I am loged in, to avoid makign multiple unintended logged-out edits. I suggest that you consider the possibility of such situations when dealing with IP edits. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, that particular IP is part of a questionable operation that shows signs of possible sockpuppetry beyond the known users. I do think also now is the time to consider refraining from monitoring my work on Wikipedia. You probably mean well, but it's becoming borderline harassment - and that's also governed by a policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you felt harassed or annoyed, the line merely caught my eye as I was leaving the marcomgirl thread above. I knew there might be additional reasons in the particular case, which is why i was careful to phrase things generally, and start a new section to not interfere with your dialog with others involved in that issue. Now knowing you feel that way, I will steer clear unless something brings us together at some other page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 11:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your G11 GoNoodle

[edit]

I took it to WP:COIN and wanted you to see the response. It speaks volumes to what we're dealing with, don't you think? We're letting promos remain based on how crafty a business owner/publicist is with the distribution of press releases. Could it be that editors are simply overlooking or not understanding WP:Notability#General_notability_guideline#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence, which states..."that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity? Some of those articles remind me of a retail catalog, complete with ratings and assurances. Ironically, our volunteer editors (and/or COI editors) are expected to whip those promos into shape according to WP:PAG including copyediting, citing and trying to make them look like they have some semblance of EV. ^_^ Oh my, the subject header is borderline obscene. Atsme📞📧 02:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, have you ever read WP:BOGOF. It summarises much of your thinking here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! Well, it's comforting to know there are others of the same mind. Perhaps it's time to consider the potential for a Wikipedia: BPM - the Encyclopedia of Business, Promotion & Marketing; and a Wikipedia: MF - the Encyclopedia of Music & Film. Then we can move all the commercial flavored articles over to those projects, and make it a commercial entity assess fees for inclusion and maintenance. It will free us up so we can focus on building & maintaining the real Wikipedia encyclopedia the way it's supposed to be. Atsme📞📧 03:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Atsme, if you want a look at why I am so motivated to help with NPP reform, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocket.Chat.
It was the article the experience that most convinced me that ACTRIAL was worth a go. Created by a likely paid editting account with a random string username that was not AC, CSD was declined by an inexperienced user (in my view incorrectly, but like DGG says, there is room for disagreement on such things), and then the founder of the company brought PR sources to the AfD and canvassed editors he thought would be sympathetic, while spewing nonsense about how he doesn't make money off it (they follow the Red Hat model, so they do make money off it, just indirectly).
This is the case that typifies it best in my experience, but I'm sure everyone who is active at NPP can find similar stories. Spammers should not be allowed to game the system, and ACTRIAL will likely decrease that. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme and TonyBallioni: see thread 51, #User: Marcomgirl on this talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that situation.As I expressed at the AfD, simply following the terms of use should not exempt a paid editor from a policy (WP:NOTSPAM) that a volunteer editor would otherwise be bound by. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What should have been short developed into a long winded thread which took me away from valuable contributing elsewhere. I think David Siegel (who is actually a very nice guy) finally understood where I was coming from on paid editing. Anyone who does not work as intensely on NPP as you and I do (and Scottywong and The Blade of the Northern Lights used to), may not be seeing the bigger picture and how paid editing features in the context of WP:ACTRIAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni and Kudz...wow - just wow. The problem is rampant and ever-increasing. One of the comments made by the Rocket.Chat rep screams at us: I am confused. I looked at the references from related articles like Appium I honestly cannot understand how their references meet the guides and ours doesn't. The floodgates are wide open and the overflow has diluted WP's EV. Our GNGs need tightening and clarification of what makes a topic worthy of inclusion. Perhaps we've focused too much on citing multiple independent 3rd party sources without considering EV and/or the substantial changes that were being made as more publishers transitioned from print to internet publishing; the latter of which created a much different published resource because of the drastic changes to the respective publisher's financial model and income generators. There's a fine line between actual news and paid press releases/product promotions that are published under the guise of "opinion" in say, the Business section of the NYTimes or the like. WP needs to catch-up with the times (no pun intended). Atsme📞📧 04:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, as I've been repeating since the Marcomgirl thing, our GNG does not need tightening, we already have the guidelines in place to deal with it: WP:N is a two-prong test that includes both GNG and WP:NOT. N also has other wonderful tidbits such as WP:NPOSSIBLE, which helps to fight systemic bias with common sense. Reading WP:N as a whole rather than just one section of it would solve both a lot of our spam problem and a lot of our trigger happy deletion problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not altogether sure that 'trigger happy' deletion tagging itself is so much of a problem. We've lost much of the institutional memory needed for knowing how to obtain stats and I would be interested to know just how many CSDs are actually declined. I don't think it's many. If we're going to go crazy over stats, it would also be interesting to have some breakdowns for comparison between the tagging by qualified New Page Reviewers, and the children and inexperienced users who are still allowed to tag pages. It's my guess that inappropriate tagging mainly comes from the latter group. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not have been the decision of the closing admin to delete this article? It was nominated twice and it fails GNG. WP is not MacWorld or PCMagazine where software developers launch new products. I'm of the mind that the actual EV is the technology behind such a product rather than the product itself...the science...the innovation...certainly the occasional product that revolutionizes an industry, made history, not necessarily every new product that comes along using the same technology etc. And what about companies like Burger King and spin-off articles about their individual products? Even if it's well-written and promoted to FA, does it really belong in WP as having "encyclopedic value"? Then comes the question, are we encyclopedians or trivia historians? AfD closers who aren't decisive are as much a detriment to the quality and integrity of the project as are the creators of non-notable and/or poorly written articles. Yes, no? Perhaps my thinking is too Encyclopedia Britannican. Kudz, I read the articles you linked on my TP, and again, commend your efforts. What appears to be happening is a perpetuating cycle of maintaining the status quo. The established pattern is out with the old editors who have burned themselves out fighting losing battles, and in with new editors who, over a period of 5 to 6 years, will eventually realize they, too, are fighting a losing battle. Little to no progress is being made. We're drowning in the bureaucracy that appears to be content with the status quo. I think WP:WikiProject Med is exemplary because its members demand the citing of highly reliable sources per WP:MEDRS.
The following reviews may prove helpful to the ACTRIAL agenda:

And the above is not even the tip of the iceberg. If left unchecked...well...I'm preaching to the choir. Atsme📞📧 13:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPP's backlog becomes AfD's backlog
As more reviewers get busy getting the job done, another backlog is growing at AfD. Savvy marketers/publicists/COI editors have learned to register their accounts. Today's AfD log is an eye-opener. Perhaps it would help for WMF to review the process, and go back several months to see what NPR editors are dealing with daily. Atsme📞📧 00:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Look at all the garbage that will be gone in a week. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawar News Agency

[edit]

Hi Kudpung, Can you have a chat with this guy, he is insisting that it is OK to put in a list of Google Facebook searches as a references. This is User:Batternut. I can't seem to convince him what a bad idea it is. scope_creep (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep has been treating the essay WP:GYNOT as Wikipedia policy - informed opinions on the issue at Talk:Hawar News Agency will be very welcome! (Regardless of PROD status etc). Regards, Batternut (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Batternut, Scope creep's handling of the Hawar News Agency article is perfectly in order. I had to restrain myself from unilaterally deleting the article myself. Google is not Wikipedia - we are under no obligation to accept every mention that appears in a list of search engine hits. Self-populated, unaudited websites such as Facebook, or any other social media for that matter, are not acceptable as references and even when just used as EL they will usually be deleted on sight. Wikilawyering is not the way to get support for your opinions. 09:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)[reply]

Re-editing

[edit]

Hi Kudpung...Thanks , I have done what you have requested.--Widmun (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Players Bonded Warehouses

[edit]

It would help greatly to know what kind of additional sources you believe are needed to substantiate claims in this article. A bland "additional sources" needed is not very helpful for an occasional wikipedia editor such as myself. Semudobia (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is perfectly in order. Possibly a software bug placed the template message on the wrong user talk page. The message has been removed. My apologies for any inconvenience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was my fault, Semudobia. I had too many windows open and clicked on the wrong one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was worried there were further arcane policies I was unaware of. Semudobia (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Python (painter)

[edit]

Dear Kudpung, I just entered this contribution on the Paestan vase painter Python, which was a stub on extant pages on Paestan vase painting. It needs an entry, he's one of a few prominent painters from that time and area. I cited three standard reference works (Trendall, Denoyelle, Schauenburg) with detailed references to the two signed pieces discussed. I'm surprised about your comments "Totally unsourced. Possible essay or WP:OR." Definitely not an essay, not unsourced and not a single bit of copy-paste. Please could you advise. Thank you. Matt

Robin S. Taylor, I've removed the PROD notice, but this article needs a massive clean up to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards. Please start by reading WP:CITE and address the issue of references quickly before someone else comes by and tags it for deletion again. Then for more help read WP:My first article and if you still have questions, ask at WP:The Tea House. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1-90 Muswell Court

[edit]

The page was created in error. I do not oppose the deletion. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Sought..

[edit]

Is this encyclopaedic?I'm compelled to see it as a sort of promotional effort cum advertisement and wish to bring this to AfD.Still thought, a second eye will be better!Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 17:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I checked some of the links - example: the first source they cited is LLB which is pure promotion, and the others simply demonstrate their work. The "About" section at LLB states: We provide a platform that allows people from all aspects of the advertising industry to share their news, work, and opinion, without begging for column space or paying for advertorial. The article was declined numerous times at AfC, and then for some reason, the last reviewer accepted it. I wonder why we have to go through the motions at AfD when promotionalism is blatantly obvious...Atsme📞📧 17:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme:--Well, the AFC acceptance rate of the acceptor is 62.29%.And see this.My gut-feelings say that this does not augur well!Winged Blades Godric 17:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya. This is what we can't fight and it's a big part of the reason WP has become a growing corporate/small business marketing arm and promotional outlet for publicisits/PR firms. As I've been saying repeatedly, the laxity and ambiguity of GNG and WP's own COI are formidable. WP has given "encyclopedic value" new meaning. If company donations comprise a large portion of WP's funding, (see this), it will consistently be an uphill battle, especially considering the WMF's standards for COI & paid editing. It would be naive of us to think those numbers won't grow. I found the following article interesting (old but interesting): sponsored editing. Atsme📞📧 18:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme and Winged Blades of Godric:, I am very concerned about this. I've just spent 20 minutes thoroughly examining those sources (and yes, I'm a 99.99999% native German speaker), and such was the situation that I was first left wondering if the article is a hoax. After all the recent hulabaloo over NPP and our success in obtaining the consent of the WMF to try some experiments and as I'm supposed to have retired from it all 4 months ago, I would like to take a short rest, so I would very much appreciate if someone else could investigate further how this article came to be n mainspace. the first course of action would be to take it up with the patroller or AfC agent while also asking an uninvolved admin such as Boing! said Zebedee or Drmies to take a look. Note: there are also articles like Zeta (company) that seem to have passed through the same or similar process, and fortunately caught by the keen eye of DGG who while not admitting to be an expert on music issues, is probably one of the most experienced admins when it comes to corporate and other veiled spam, and paid advocacy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Articles for deletion/2WEI Music; Kudpung, I will need you to help by analyzing the individual refs. there. Getting rid of spam is a multi-step process, even at best, not everything will be caught in AfC or NPP. AfD is erratic, but it usually works. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG That's weird - I was researching that article this morning - did 24 different searches, and thought I tagged the article or answered a question about it, ???. Anyway, the first cited source LLB (Little Black Book) is a site anyone can join and allows people from all aspects of the advertising industry to share their news, work, and opinion, without begging for column space or paying for advertorial. What my research found is that it's a start-up (2016) company (2 guys in their 30s) that composes music for commercials, movie trailers, promos, etc. I couldn't find anything that passes Wikipedia:Notability (music). Atsme📞📧 05:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get confused. The WMF does not actually support paid editing and advocacy--I agree that it does not fight strongly enough against it, but remember that if it did become more active, how could we reasonably expect it to do just what we want it to do? It is wise to be careful about what someone else might do before inviting them into the arena. The problem is up to us, not them. The quality of WP is maintained not by the foundation, but by the editors. Their role is to facilitate it, but stay in the background. If they don't facilitate it enough, all the more reason for us doing our part better. The WMF is not short of money, and is not to my knowledge influenced by the need for corporate contributions under the present Executive Director. That's not the problem. As you recognize, the need of organizations -- nonprofit as well as profit-- for the publicity that WP gives is the problem. But that's the problem that is caused by the success of WP, and of course it will increase. (VN, whose p. is linked above, was stopped--read to the bottom. His work was an example of a nonprofit working for a worthy cause with the best intentions, but still not for the good of the encyclopedia. ) As for Wikicreators, I think I know who they might be, but their illicit work is apparently good enough that nobody has caught them yet. But there's a hint on their current ad that may help.
As for changing our rules, I certainly have ideas, but I know perfectly well that the majority of people here will not support them. Oddly, they believe in the GNG. For my first few months here, I though it very clever myself, but I soon learned. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[FBDB] Here's a novel idea - all the editors who oppose your proposed changes will be required to volunteer at NPP for 3 mos. and at AfC for another 3 mos. Atsme📞📧 15:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As DGG knows, all our notabiity guidelines are, well, guidelines. We need to IAR on some of them and be less accommodating to users who have obviously created their accounts to make money on the back of our unpaid work. Not only unpaid, but some of us also spend 100s of $$ going to meetups and Wikimania (I can't afford the $2,000 it would cost me to go this year, although another North American conference is going to draw the very people I need and want to see). My patience gets severely tested by people who use process wonkery and Wikilawyering to argue against the deletion of their articles - just look at some of their arrogant, pompous comments on this take page, and I don't care if they have half a dozen doctoral degrees to their name, plenty of us have higher degrees too. I expect it even shows how tetchy I sometimes become. Probably the main reason why users don't like Reviewing new pages is because it brings with it a lot of very nasty comments. Nobody needs that kind of thing, especially volunteers.
As I mentioned above, I have recently spent literally hundreds of hours on NPP/ACTRIAL issues and doing a lot of patrolling myself to prove I know what I'm talking about and it's kind of sapped my energy (even to the point of almost quitting Wikipedia altogether). I have builders here putting the final touches on our new showroom and office block and I have to fly to several meetings around Thailand over the next few days. I really do need a break. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with most guidelines and policies in WP, the meaning of the deletion criteria depends a great deal on how they are interpreted. The interpretation is done by the accumulated and sometimes changing consensus the talk pages of the noticeboards and policy/guideline pages, and by the very variable decisions at individual instances. The result is sometimes a considerable gap between the formal wording and the effectual applications of it. Some things are interpreted very narrowly, some very broadly; some very strictly, and some very permissively.. Individual people differ, and the consensus is affect by which individual show up at a given argument. Every one of us who participates in these arguments has a different view of it. That said, there are some constants: the clearest example is that BLP tends to be interpreted strictly and broadly (more broadly than I really think justified); copyvio also strictly (and again more broadly than I think necessary--we are much less permissive than USLaw about fair use); most speedy criteria somewhat more broadly than they are written; WP:V is often disregarded unless someone protests.
The result, of course, is an encyclopedia full of inconsistencies, with consequent difficult for new users in figuring out just what is permitted. But this is inherent in the underlying working method of the encyclopedia -- we make our own rules, we make what exceptions we please, and there is no person or group that who can definitively settle disputes about content. The only reason this works is because of mutual tolerance. There is consequently a strong feeling against individual who try to make a point overemphasizing any one thing. Working with deletion processes involves tolerating an especially large amount of ambiguity and stupid decisions. Those who want a more predictable environment, would do better to work on vandalism or copyvio.

— DGG

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, Atsme, and Winged Blades of Godric:, I'm also concerned about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeta (company). I seriously think that the AfC agent's reviews should be examined and escalated if necessary. It does seem as if a pattern is emerging. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I second that.Winged Blades Godric 08:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG and Atsme:---Well, this's another one.And what surprises me is not just the acceptance inspite of (promotional sourcing, self-sourcing and sourcing to a WP:RS which does not even discuss the subj.)but this edit by the acceptor baffles me more.Winged Blades Godric 08:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more about an editor's confusion over WP:N. For example, that firm has numerous articles in multiple publications which are listed on their website but the publications are independent. They even went to the trouble of making PDFs of the various articles that were published...and there are lots of them. I would imagine that a lot of editors would believe they meet the requirements. And that, dear Watson, is the problematic line between promotional value and encyclopedic value, so we've learned to accept promotion if it's well written as evidenced here by you know who. Atsme📞📧 15:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add this and this.Winged Blades Godric 08:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG, Atsme, and Winged Blades of Godric: I've A7'd it. It makes no claims of anything at all. Just having references does not make it important. References are supposed to support claims. I think we have something that needs closer investigation - there is a limit to AGF. There's a lot of patrols and reviews to check. I'll leave it up to you guys, but if you need me to do any blocking or close a CU's report, let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am inclined to ask Kvng to put a dead stop to his reviewing activities at WP:AFC.We are just not expecting AFC reviewers to send CSD-able materials to mainspace!Winged Blades Godric 10:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: I would do some discreet research first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in...just have a few things to do before I delve into it. I'm more inclined to believe we have a techie editor working in AfC & NPP who simply didn't do enough research on some of the articles before opening the gate. As an aside - look at this speedy-d request and how it was handled. We don't have enough redirects, do we...*sigh* Atsme📞📧 15:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Susan Mitchell (Australian author)

[edit]

Hi Kudpung

Thank you for your feedback. Am sorry that my article is down for deletion unless I make sufficient edits in the next 7 days. I plan to do my best to meet the criteria you mention to get my revision accepted. This is only the second article I've written, although I have done a reasonable amount of editing on Wikipedia. I will work on improvements.

Oronsay (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

[edit]

Hi, I'm Atsme. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Susan Mitchell (Australian author), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Atsme📞📧 02:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Sorry about that, Kudz. That isn't quite what happened. I found more sources and started fixing the Mitchell article, and checked it as reviewed. Atsme📞📧 04:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Atsme - although it can happen that I make the occasional mistake. In spite of all my ranting about the poor general quality of NPP, even I'm not 100% perfect. Nobody is. What we need do to be on the look out for however, is people that get it wrong too often, or as in the case above, might possibly be revealing an unusual pattern or tendency in their patrols or AfC reviews. It's all happened in the past, user:Pastor Theo and user:Wifione just to name but a couple of examples . Bureaucrats too. We can't stress enough how important NPP is and how vigilant we need to be, and how sometimes we might need to stretch our perception of WP:AGF. These are things which I hope Kaldari, MusikAnimal, and DannyH (WMF) will take into account when helping us develop the software we need. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than meets the eye

[edit]

Hi Kudpung. Re this frustrated IP, there's more to his problems than meets the eye. See [5] and [6] Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Voce, I've already been following and checking as much as I can. Unfortunately I'm not a CU. The IP is probably a proxy serve - no people from that location master the English idiom so well, and the style is familiar. I have a suspicion who it is that is evading their ban, but that's all it is - a suspicion. If you have any ideas, mail me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is embarrassing ...

[edit]

... but I've lost the discussion on ACTRIAL - the current one that was going on. Where was it located again? I was going to follow up on something. ~ Rob13Talk 01:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, There are/were several threads in several venues: WT:NPR, WT:NPPAFC, WP:KNPP, Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and User talk:Kudpung/New Page Patrol - a necessary evil. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was the one. Thanks; there's so many discussions going on that I'm losing track of the ones I care about. ~ Rob13Talk 02:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BU Rob13, the discussions will probably die down now that the WMF has realised that the trial is necessary. We'll roll out the trial as soon as we have the scripts from the WMF for the stats that will monitor the experiment. I have fought very hard for many years to get NPP cleaned up and done accurately, and it was recognised a long time ago that ACTRIAL as we planned it would not only help the naive new users, but would stem the tide of inapprpriate page creations. Emphasising that this is only a trial, I am of course fully open to the fact that the results of the trial could go anywhere. I will of course abide 100% with any genuine result of the trial, and by that time I will be too tired and jaded to continue with Wikipedia. The detractors who are not interested in maintaining a quality encyclopedia have seen to that. We do however need to be careful that the WMF do not deliberately manipulate the figures as they did quite blatantly to the NPP survey we did in 2012. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung/Archive_Jun_2017&oldid=1079548529"