User talk:Kudpung/Archive May 2018

Failed attempt log gin

Hi, I got a notice of a Failed attempt loggin. This has never happened to me before. I'm hoping that no one is trying to access my Wikipedia account. Is there a way to know the location of where it happened? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Johnsmith2116: some kind of mass attack/probe/whatever has been going on today, affecting a great many users. There are related threads at WP:AN and WP:VPT, among others. AFAICT there’s no way for users to identify the source, but at any rate you shouldn’t feel singled out, and if you have a unique, reasonably strong password the risk is minimal.—Odysseus1479 02:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Johnsmith2116, I have no idea, I get it sometimes. Maybe you tried to log in from another device while you were still logged in on another computer from a different IP address, or maybe someone did make such an attempt. Just hazarding a guess here - the best place to ask is at the [[WP:VP}} (tech). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It can also happen if you mistype your password when logging in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung and Odysseus. I've actually not had to manually log in for nearly a year. I do Wikipedia from one computer only, which is always saving the Wikipedia log in, and no one else has access to my computer. So, it definitely was not me. ... What I don't understand is why someone would want to get into other people's Wikipedia accounts. There is nothing tangible to be gained, as far as I can see. Not money nor anything else of so much value that it is worth going to so much effort. But, if anyone ever got into mine and used it to vandalize, I hope that an administrator would give me the benefit of the doubt and run an IP check, before being so quick to suspend my account. I have five digits' worth of edits on here and have built up a reputation, and I wouldn't put it in danger after so many years. Same for many other long time editors as well. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, there has been a massive attack on thoousands of accounts on all Wikipedias world wide. Read about it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_help-_who_tried_to_break_into_my_account?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've been getting non-stop attacks today too. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw it a little earlier. Thanks again. The scale of it sounds awful. Is it only in English, or in many languages? ... From what I read on that page, some appear to have had it happen a few times in the last couple of days. Maybe I'm lucky to only get it once. And hopefully this situation will stop before long. Even finding that one's account was unsuccessfully gotten into is enough to unnerve people. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to article wizard

Hello Kudpung! I'm a new user here and I tried to open the article wizard today. I've created article drafts many times before this, but today I noticed that on mobile phone, the "Next" button isn't clickable. Before your edit it wasn't the case. I don't really know if it's because of your edit or something else, or is it related to my phone only, but I just wanted to inform you about it. I don't have right to edit that page and I don't even know how to do it, but it isn't accessible on mobile phone. TryKid (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC) TryKid (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi TryKid, thanks for the heads up. My edit should not have affected he function of the page, but I've reverted it until I can replicate the issue. Please ch5eck and see if it works now on your phone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung:, it's working again now with the edit reverted. Thank you TryKid (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TryKid, thanks for checking. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at 1256wiki's talk page.
Message added 15:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Forgot to ping you, so good old template. — regards, Revi 15:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Signpost concept: Point-counterpoint

I stumbled across this which IMO should have been publicized via RfC or some other means, and it got me thinking. What if we took an issue like this and invited an editor to take each side of such a proposal, and ran it in The Signpost as a point-counterpoint column? It's somewhat inspired by the pro/con statements for statewide initiatives that appear in our voter's guide: example 2012 Washington guide p. 10 or p. 31. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I get the point, but I feel it might make The Signpost too much of a political instrument (like your Washington example)- and it would need a referee in the ring. Perhaps in the future, but for the moment we need to try and get enough regular features submitted. That particular discussion however, is right up my street and I might write an op-ed about it for the June issue if that would help, because it's not the only solution being discussed. I know it's only May 5 today, but time goes fast. I'll be chivvying up some of those regular column contributors in a day or two. I still have to wait for further developments before I complete my draft article. On another note: I think it's time to ask xaosflux to allow the watchlist notice, it will take weeks before the traditional 'univolved expert' reacts to the call at AN to close the mini discussion. It's not as if it's debating a major new policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, it seemed clear enough, I closed it and added to the directions at Wikipedia:Watchlist_notices#Standing_notices. Feel free to add it or drop an edit request when it comes out again. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, xaosflux. C ould you do it for us please? I can't remember how and the instruction page is not clear. The message is:

Stay up to date with what's happening on and around Wikipedia. The new issue of The Signpost is out now.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Continuing with the "point-counterpoint" concept. Yeah, it's political. But that's what makes it compelling to read. And informative to our audience. I think a good "referee" could do a minimum of editing for style/length and let the contributors have their way. (An important feature is the opportunity for debate-style rebuttal, but with space constraints.) It would be a departure from the usual content at The Signpost which is why I asked here first. However, I don't think this debases The Signpost as a neutral media venue; I'm thinking again of a local example, an evening TV news show that had a feature like this. I was not consciously aware till just now that they called it "point-counterpoint", guess it was retained somewhere in my brain :) ☆ Bri (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The "point-counterpoint" concept is a commonly used system - you have the presidential candidate face-offs in the US, and I believe the UK has caught up and uses it too. However, they take place before the main event. Such a feature in Signpost would need a lot of planning. First getting wind of an upcoming RfC, then finding the right candidates for it. The moderator would have to field the questions or at least keep the discussion on an even keel so that the readers are left making up their own minds who is right and who is wrong. I'm certainly not against the idea, but I just see the workload. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

uncivil comments

To what comments are you referring?Sbelknap (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that you as a doctor and medial academic are unable to tell the difference between objective commentary and casting ad homiem aspertions. Read what you said about Jytdog who is one of our respected and prolific contributors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please state what you believe to be problematic. Thanks.Sbelknap (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Answered on Sbelknap's tp ☆ Bri (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Signpost and new word learned

Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง How are you?. I learned a new word today: Citogenesis.8-). Excellent work on the Signpost. I discovered it quite late, but well worth reading. Excellent work. scope_creep (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to find out I am not the only person to learn from Kudpung's vocabularies ([1]). Alex Shih (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU (Talk) 13:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Food

Curd Rice

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Check out this ACTREQ failure

I count 7 edits by this account before he moved his draft to mainspace. Granted he started editing before ACTREQ and has met the 4 day rule. [2] Interesting. Legacypac (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

(watching) @Legacypac: I guess the thing counts deleted edits; as incl. them, they have far more. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Something with deleted edits (xtools gives 17 deleted edits) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha that's the answer. Now to look at his new page. Shows three of his page creations deleted before. Legacypac (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Ha! Five day old account, created that with references and links in a single edit? Yeah, Right... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the page was deleted before. He pasted it in complete with an AfC reviewer comment. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted as spam by RHaworth and DESiegel at Draft:Dasharathraj K Shetty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Draftified.Clear-cut-UPE. At File:Dasharathraj K Shetty.jpg, in the source-field, the author says--online; was sent to me personally.AGF is not a suicide pact.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Posting New Pages Feed changes at NPP talk

@Kudpung: I updated the project page to summarize the plan for AfC improvements as it now stands, and I also posted it on the AfC talk page. I was thinking that it might be a good idea to also post it for the NPP community, so that NPP reviewers aren't surprised when the New Pages Feed changes. Is that something you would like to do? I'm also happy to post if you prefer. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

MMiller (WMF), please go ahead and post at WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A/B Testing Article Wizard

Just read through that long thread and I agree with your sentiment (without having anywhere near your expertise in this area) and criticism of the current version. What would be the best way for me to lend a !vote to your idea of testing a different version to see its effects on AfC? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49. The best way would probably be to simply add a new comment to the thread. Thanks for your support.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Spam trouble

Hi Kudpung, there is a spammer who has been making their way through the golf related articles and adding potentially dangerous spam links to the articles, and apparently using multiple accounts to do so. We first noticed it a few weeks ago, and now they are doing it again today. And we are trying to update a certain golf related page today in real time, and we have to keep halting our work to reverse the spam. Is there anything else that can be done? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, yes, but it will need my admin tools. Please provide linkds to the articles and a link to the user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, Final warnings to 2 of the spammers. Some pages protected. Let me know If I've missed any. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

New good-faith editor creating non-notable school articles

An inexperienced but good-faith editor, PercussionistUnited (that's not a ping), has created a couple of school articles which I do not think achieve notability: Newton-Conover City Schools, Discovery High School of Newton-Conover. Since I'm not familiar with the notability guidelines for schools, could you possibly take a look at them, and if they are problematical, gently let the editor know and let them know how to proceed henceforth? I encourage avoiding scaring him away, as he seems a valuable asset to the project. Thanks. (I also posted this message on WikiProject Schools.) Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: There's a small chance that the editor is a sock (forgotten password, etc.) of one of the redlinks, all SPAs, who worked on this article: [3], and that article itself (Newton-Conover High School) needs to be reviewed for notability. Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Softlavender, I will get on to this right now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Non Notable School to redirect

Hi, I have 2 Questions regarding the Chongqing No.68 Middle School

1. clearly this is a candidate of redirect to locality per policy, why is it in AFD instead of getting redirected simply.
2. The expected outcome of the AfD I believe should also be REDIRECT, so should the users vote DELETE or REDIRECT.

Appreciate your kind response to clarify this. --DBigXray 15:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray 1. Because the creator will simply revert the redirect again. 2. Never speculate on the outcome of an AfD - the results often depend on who turns out to vote. Voters who know their policy are free to vote delete, or redirect. 3. 'Redirect' is a policy but according to the wording of the policy, it's not absolutely mandatory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification yes I do Agree with the #3. I have voted Delete based on my findings and the clarification you gave. --DBigXray 16:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one, DBigXray, similar case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Duplication

Hoping to sidestep possible misunderstandings in Newsroom. We have these two:

• User:Kudpung/Feature - created first, I was initially unaware
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the archives - created by me after I read your comment on my talkpage

Qwerty6811 reviewed the latter in good faith so I thought it might look good to keep that one. Other than that I have no feelings on it. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I think correct attrib should be due so at least we we know who is doing all the work. This is why the submission and reviewing progress needs to be overhauled to be available with a better overview. As temp E-in-C I'm still finding the learning curve very, very steep for the time I will be doing this. If we can get these things sorted out I may stay with Signpost longer. I do realise that I'm not technically versed with making such changes, and I do understand that you also have a lot on your plate. My basic endeavour is to produce a beefy monthly publication so I keep coming up with ideas for more content. I'll continue to provide the content for 'From the Archives' and have a few selected already. I'm also drafting possible articles for future issues but I have to be careful that even if they are op-eds I keep them sufficiently nutral - not an easy task! There's on here if you want to take a sneak peek. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For WP:NPP Marvellous Spider-Man 10:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Marvellous Spider-Man. Just doing what I think I'm fairly good at;) BTW, Why did you remove your name from the NPP newsletter list? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

DarknessShines

FWIW, I think the removal of TPA was excessive, too, and would have said so when you did it but found that you had also protected the talk page. IAR and all that: DS is a fantastic sock spotter and, given their past history of socking, I don't think doing what you did is going to help at all. Just because SBAN says you can does not mean you should. I k now you are a stickler for rules etc but this one really doesn't make much practical sense. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a stickler for the rules - but that doesn't mean I never IAR on some issues. I saw what he was banned for and I'm afraid it's something for which I have no tolerance and therefore should not allow him to continue business as usual. Over the years there's been too much 'can't block him because he's a good content writer, etc, etc,' The decision to ban was a community decision. I'm just enacting the word of the policy. I'm sorry, but if you want to contest it, you'll have to take it to an official channel, and that is only Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I remember you being ridiculously rule-bound in your dislike of Corbett also. In fact, you're nearly up there with Smallbones, which is not a compliment. It's no secret that I've never cared for your ways, Kudpung, and doubtless you do not care for mine but I really do think you put your own interests in lawyering etc front of those of the project far too often and you spend so much time on admin stuff & the Signpost etc that you've lost touch with what actually matters.

Tracking DS using another sock account would be very difficult. Knowing where he is, and taking on board the occasional post he makes there, is a sensible approach. Some people are not known for sense, obviously. Yes, I could take it to ArbCom and waste a shedload more time; meanwhile, we'll be struggling even more to keep on top of things in the areas that actually matter and to which, even when blocked, DS contributes positively (ie: sock spotting etc). - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that I have ever been sufficiently interested in you to have ever criticised you or your work. I'm pinging Smallbones out of courtesy - because you didn't - so that they can measure to what extent you've lost touch with civility. Consider yourself personna non grata on this page (one of only 6 in all these years). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Probable UPE

Tristanmulhall. Just reviewed his most recent draft , which is so promo and lacking in real substance could probably be G12, and appears to have a pattern of it. Since one of the fighters of this is frequent guest on your page, and I know how you feel about it, thought I'd just put this up here for consideration. John from Idegon (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon tag it for G11 if you feel so inclined. There's already talk of not being too soft with such AfC submitters in the future, and not waiting for G13 or wasting time at MfD. Normally I try to help people but his tp is typical of IDHT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg.

World's Lamest Critic, an individual who was maliciously wikistalking me, prior to earning an indefinite block for unapologetically outing the real world identity of multiple wikipedia contributors, claimed that this SPI would have exposed them as a sockpuppet, if they were a sockpuppet.

Can you answer some questions for me?

1. Unless the person filing an SPI requests a check-user, the SPI is closed based on behavioral evidence, not by checking the underlying IP addresses? Correct
2. Check-user checks are only done on request out of respect for contributors privacy? They can be done at any time at CU's discretion within the rules
3. Check-user check requests get turned down if the request doesn't offer a convincing explanation as to why it is necessary? Generally, yes
4. The data necessary for a check-user is only preserved for a limited time, and requests after this time are considered "stale"? Is it 90 days? three months? I belive that is correct
5. Is the limited time period another measure to protect privacy, or is it a technical limitation? This is purely a local Wikipedia policy. MediWiki so9ftwre permits the data to be stored indefinitely
6. Maybe I didn't look in the right place, but I haven't been able to learn exactly what can be learned from a check-user check. We try not to talk about it too loudly
   1. When a check is performed, does it first report the underlying IP address used by each of the named wiki-IDs? We try not to talk about it too loudly
   2. Does it also report which other wiki-IDs have used that IP address? It depends how the CU uses the tools
   3. If a sockpuppetmaster uses a service that allows them to appear to be coming from a different IP address, elsewhere, this defeats the check-user check? If you mean a VPN or similar, it could make evidence harder to obtain

Finallly, did Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg include the steps that would have definitely concluded whether World's Lamest Critic was a sockpuppet? {{tq|I don't know. Ask the CU who worked on the case. KrakatoaKatie is lone of the most thorough CUs I know. If my questions could be answered by a wikidocument, I am perfectly happy to have you just link to it, provided it is on a site I have access to.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan, I'm really the wrong person to ask. You would get more accurate answers from those who work full time at SPI, such as CU Bbb23 or one of the clerks. See my answers in green above. I closed that particular SPI because it had not been closed for a month and because WLC was one of the accused and other users caught in the net were demanding exoneration. I was a victim of his harassment and trolling and that's why I knew about the case. In my opinion he was not the kind of person who is best suited for a collaborative environment and he was finally blocked for something else which I was not involved in. If by any chance you are considering reopening the case, be sure to examine WLC's editing history and his interaction with other users very closely, and studly the SPI again. And you may wish to conduct your preliminary enquiries by email with trusted users - it's one of the situations where discretion is often best, and we often know a lot more than we let on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See global checkuser policy about the 90-day data retention; it's not local.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) don't bother with the sock Chris MR; he's Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Denver LTA just popping in to disrupt. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Declined submission by anon

No problems with your decision not to take this submission. However: we should probably send some feedback to 212.201.74.190, you think? I'd be happy to draft up some kind of "thank you for applying" text. Hopefully, less ego-crushing than this. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Quick draft here. Apply this to user talkpage (if desired): {{subst:User:Bri/Op-ed rejection}} ☆ Bri (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bri don't think it's worth bothering about. The IP is an open proxy, the talk page was deleted once already, and the whole thing has the aspect of a rant by a blocked or banned user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

From the style and topic, I'm pretty sure who it is, and it's a bit of a coincidence that it comes just after I took over as E-in-C. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I got punked by an open proxy *rolleyes*

Well, the nice text is there if we need it in the future ☆ Bri (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion for the Signpost

Hello,

may I inquire why it has been declined without any discussion taking place? --212.201.70.205 (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Technically, you haven't made a suggestion at The Signpost. However, your comment at the mainpage talk has been reverted. For the information you require, perhaps you may wish to visit the talk pages of the IP you use Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no information there. Would you like to comment? --212.201.70.205 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see the comment on the talk page of the IP address you probably use - if indeed it was you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

First haul of ACPERM evaders

FYI WP:COIN#First haul of ACPERM evaders ☆ Bri (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I'm rather tied up with content for a newspaper at the moment to use my tools at COIN, but I can use it for an article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, not an emergency (not any more than usual, anyhow). ☆ Bri (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Coordinator Election/Newsletter

Keen to send out the next NPP Newsletter soon, and looking at the draft that is prepared in the newsletter archive, we need to choose a date for the coordinator election. Any thoughts? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, I am still deliberately deferring the dates both of the election and the newsletter announcing it because there has been so much going on lately affecting AfC and NPP and it's not over yet. A newsletter does not have to be regularly once a month, in fact the less often they appear the more impact they have when they do. Don't worry though, it will all be coming together soon, especially as concomitant with the newsletter there will be the added impact of an article about AfC/NPP in The Signpost which I had originally prepared for this month's issue due out in a few days; I have postponed that article for the very same reasons. If you would like to contribute to it to bring it up to date for the June issue and share the attrib for the authorship, don't hesitate to let me know. There's no rush with anything right now, we went for 14 years without NPP elections or newsletters. The main rush, getting ACTRIAL to ACPERM is over. (Tony?). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

烧饼不解释

烧饼——～～～～ 被你抛弃的哀伤 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

烧饼司马 被你抛弃的哀伤 (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure if you can read English but apologies 被你抛弃的哀伤 for the rollback, I clicked to search and the next thing I know I've rollbacked you!, No idea what happened but my apologies. –Davey2010^Talk 11:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

to any admins, native Chinese speaker here, the chinese texts above are profanies but written in another kind of tone , e.g. f*** using f#**, translated is f*** y***, why don't explain, alternative meaning can be why kudpung dont explain himself when blocking. suggest revdel those Quek157 (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Quek157, the user has been quickly blocked for trolling. Nobody here can be expected to be fluent in Chinese. Thanks for the heads up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

that's the problem of Wikipedia, foreign languages often caught us unaware but we still need to embrace each other Quek157 (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Quek157, again, thanks for your help. Any user names that are not in Latin script should generally be enough to raise immediate suspicion and should be investigated. First and foremost of course, because being the English Wikipedia, we expect users to have user names (and signatures) that can be read and pronounced, and typed on a standard Latin alphabet keyboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

no user name issue, translated is the agony of being abandoned by you. it the black texts. Quek157 (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's still a user name issue: WP:NONLATIN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure user name have issues but what they posted can be profanities. that's what I'm pointing out Quek157 (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP curation toolbar

hello, from 6 hours ago the curatiom toolbar just don't pop up when I am aboutto take reviewing of a page. Tried to check SQL the script is still there. any remedies ?Quek157 (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Quek157, there may be a bug in the system. Although I accorded the right on 12 May, some scripts are not showing you as a new page reviewer, in which case you will not have access to the Curation tool from the New Pages Feed. If you know how to report a bug at Phabricator, go ahead; otherwise, Kaldari may be able to resolve this quickly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I used it to review 30 articles can see my page curation log or the most active reviewers but just suddenly disappear. Quek157 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC) [4] I'm no 10 for past 24 hrsQuek157 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Quek157, As you probably know, I am now only coordinator 'emeritus' of the NPR system after having created it, and largely moved on to other Wikipedia activities.. If I know Kaldari, he will be fairly quick to fix the bug if he sees the pings here. The best place with issues like these however, is to report them in the first instance at WT:NPR - it's possible that other reviewers may be experiencing the same problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

posted there also , thanks Quek157 (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, Thank you for your attention to this article. Thanks! --Poya-P (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Loose"?

Hey Kudpung, on your draft of the Signpost op-ed, one section is titled "This month another five admins tacitly loose their tools". Did you mean that "This month another five admins tacitly lose their tools"? I suppose it could grammatically be either way, but the former doesn't flow very naturally in my mind. Just wanted to make sure the wording was your intention. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously a careless typo. My grammar is usually quite good ;) Thanks for pointing it out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, we both missed that.

I've got another one for you: "In the past 12 months that's a total of about 50, and an average net loss of about 39 a year since 2012 for an average of 20 new admins a year over the same period...the actual rate of attrition is an exponential figure." The math is hard to follow – I see that 50 > 39 but after that I'm lost. I'm especially unclear where exponential rate comes in. Would it be better just to say that the net loss of admins in the last 12 months (50) exceeds the average annual loss during the last six years (30), indicating an increasing loss rate? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please change it as best you can without disturbing my well known style for alliteration and I'll check it out later (busy day in the office today). I was actually trying to point out something that is well known anyway: the rate of loss greatly exceeds that of replenishment and is steadily getting worse - only 3 new admins this year and we're nearly halfway through 2018. I was unable, after searching for a long time, to find a recent graph (I can't make them myself), to illustrate where an extrapolation would show where we hit negative equity. The situation won't reach crisis point yet, but at some time in the not too distant future it will. There are complaints that the majority of our active admins have been around for too long and are getting too old for the job (me?), but on the other hand more recently created admins probably won't have the institutional knowledge. It takes years to learn all the ins and outs of our policies and guidelines and how to make appropriate judgements. More in next months article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR search criteria

I am thinking about asking the following over at WP:VPT:

Ok... I need a bit of help. I am trying to run a querry on Quarry and I am completely out of my depth.

I would like to compile a list of editors (listed by edit count) who:

• Are not members of the new page reviewer or administrator user groups
• Have >5000 edits total,
• Have >1000 edits to main space,
• Have >500 edits to the Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia talk spaces (combined),
• Have >250 edits in the last 90 days,
• Have been registered longer than 180 days,
• Have a clean block log for at least 180 days,
• Have performed at least 10 page moves in main space,
• Have created at least 10 non-redirect pages in the main article space,
• Have had less than 10% of their main space article creations deleted (this one might be difficult, but if it can't be done I can live without it).

Any suggestions for additional criteria that could be added and/or refinements to the numbers I have put above? These are not minimums, but I am tailoring the numbers to try to identify the strongest candidates possible. Any other thoughts? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, Search criteria below (it's actually less complex than what you are asking for) - let's see what it comes up with. If the result is not suitable we can always change the criteria and you can run another search. We actually did this several times before we were satisfied with our list for grandfathering, but as you are aware, there were still two or three users who turned out later not to be perfectly suited for the job. I can't help with search strings, but if you get stuck, Xaosflux may be able to help.

Extended details

Min 3,000 main space edits Min 12 months tenure (registered before 30 May 2017) Min 500 main space edits in the last 12 months Rollbacker Clean block log for at least 365 days Has created min 2 non-stub articles. No created articles deleted (other than CSD-U) in the last 12 months Before sending invites, in order to avoid flooding PERM, and to relieve just some of the admins' work, check: User page for maturity Talk page for otherwise non logged user warnings Talk page for communication skills CSD log, PROD log Vandalism patrol log Created articles free of maintenance tags and prune your list. If the list is long, share the task with other experience people like Legacypac for example. Suggested text for your invite: Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}}, We've noticed from your work on Wikipedia, that you might like to help out in a regular important maintenance task. Please check out [[WP:NPR]] and [[WP:NPP]] and if patrolling new pages sounds interesting, apply for the New Page Reviewer Right at [[WP:PERM]]. An admin will review your request generally with about 48 hours. Once approved, there is no set number of articles for you to patrol, but fairly regular patrolling would help keep the backlog down. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask either at [[WT:NPR]] or me on my talk page. Happy editing! ~~~~ Please keep me and Tony in the loop before finally sending your invites.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Why Rollbacker? I was grandfathered NPR 6 months before I requested Rollbacker, and I know a lot of qualified people don't like having Rollbacker due to the number of buttons on every page that you have to avoid touching. I feel like that could miss out a lot of promising candidates, what was your reasoning? Also, what about page moves? That is one of the things that is actually a NPR requirement. Also I think I will add some number of edits in the last 90 days, as I feel like users that haven't been active in the last 3 months are unlikely to be approved. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere. All right, strike Rollbacker. One less criterion for the search string.

When was Page Mover bundled into the New Page Reviewer right? I don't recall that. Page Mover requires a set of qualifications significantly more than for Reviewer, that's why it's not included. You start requiring criteria like these and you'll defeat your own object. The only moves they need to make are correcting really misspelled page titles and doing moves to draft. Even AfC reviewers and any confirmed users can move pages. Please do not forget that NPR is is a triage - we don't do creators' work for them, we leave that up to AfC whom we push them on to. Users who haven't been active for 90 days or longer are almost certainly not going to get past the admins at PERM, and the longer they have been inactive, the longer admins will require them to continue editing before they can request again. A 30 day hiatus is not an issue. I know you're not an admin, but if you're really interested, take a look at the archives yourself. If PERM becomes unduly swamped or backlogged, admins tend to do nothing (me included) and let the applicants wait even longer - or we just take the low hanging fruit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I was not referring to the page mover right, I was referring to selecting users with x numbers of page moves at minimum (i.e. my criteria I listed above requiring 10 moves in mainspace). The NPR page states: "The editor should have experience with moving pages in accordance with guidelines." — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm really curious how many editors stack up to this list. Ping me and I'll try to help vet. Perhaps we can name this Query A (or something), prevet the users and have them mention they were identified in Query A which would streamline Admin vetting. Bringing on good reviewers is the best way to share the load and beat back the backlog in the long run. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the last report like this had to come from a dump, because with the many criteria its run time was too long for quarry. There are a few editors that run these, you can ask for a report at Wikipedia talk:Database reports (especially if you want it done periodically (like say monthly?) User:NKohli (WMF) could likely add it to the report run done by User:Community Tech bot. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's best never to tell people they have been selected by a bot (this is a mistake many marketeers make). They are far more receptive if they think they have personally come to our notice. In any case the final selection will be done manually. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I would not tell them they were bot selected, I'd say they were hand picked based on very selective criteria I can't meet :) Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Query done

​​Due to limitations on what could be easily Queried (limiting the ability to check for deleted articles or search for specifically mainspace edit count). The criteria that ended up in the final workable query was:

• Are not members of the new page reviewer or administrator user groups,
• Have >5000 total edits (and <64,000, since I had already invited those users),
• Have >500 total edits in the last 365 days,
• Have been registered longer than 365 days,
• Have a clean block log for at least 365 days,
• Have performed at least 5 page moves,
• Have created at least 2 non-stub articles in main space (>2000 bytes).

Of this, 2291 editors were returned which can be found on User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR_invite_list. I am a bit concerned that Kudpung's additional manual criteria may be a bit more time consuming than is totally necessary: the idea that we need to check all of their articles for maintenance tags is a bit too much, a few spot checks should be fine for the invite stage. Not sure about what value checking the Vandalism patrol log brings either (I'm not an anti vandal editor myself, so I know next to nothing about it). As for CSD log, that is something that I expect them to learn after becoming a NPP, but still worth checking for particularly egregious failures (if they have a log at all). let me know any feedback you guys might have. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, I'll check it out. Please don't send any invites until we have some feedback from TonyBallioni and have manually done a further sort. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, I've had a quick glance at the list. 2291 is a lot. This will have to be pruned significantly, perhaps using the additional criteria. You need to aim atachieving a list that represents the percentage of people who actually responded to your previous initiative because even there were several PERMS that were declined. That is something we must try to avoid. There is absolutely no point in sending invites to people who are going to jump at the chance of collecting a hat. Whatever happens, and however successful the action will be, this is going to generate work for the admins in future, not only for me and Tony, but also for DGG and others who monitor the system. What we must avoid at all costs is NPR degenerating into an unmanageable team of participants such as at AfD. Finally, with the possible number of reviewers this will create, there needs to be an agreement to use the time limited rights feature as a probationary period (being generous maybe 12 months, though I would prefer 6), and to upgrade the policy to a 'use it or lose it' clause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There is not really any way of knowing who is a hat collector or not, so I won't entertain that notion, as I might as well not send any invites if you definitely don't want any hat collectors (they will come, and I can't stop that, no matter how strict the criteria I add). I could prune the list by changing it to 500 edits in the last 6 months... I also don't see any reason not to support the 6 month probationary NPR. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok that's a job and a half. As a NPP I actually rarely go full on NPP patroling but I patrol user, draft and wikipedia space pages I encounter that are good which reduces the backlog. There is some value in having users like me holding the NPR right as they chip away too.

I'm trying to think of a search criteria to ID users with an interest in patrolling. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems like the hat collectors will find their own way to PERM amd invited editors are less likely to be hat collectors. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• I re-ran the queries with 500 edits in the last 6 months, rather than 500 edits in the last year, and the result was 1,633 editors. Kudpung had originally asked to have 500 mainspace edits in a year, but targeting mainspace edits turned out too resource intensive to run the queries on. Making it more stringent (to 6 months) makes sense to me. I have updated the list and I'll add "look out for very low mainspace % of contributions" to the list of things to check. There are 13,689 editors that have 5,000 - 64,000 edits, so we have actually paired it down considerably already to 8% of the total numbers. Doing personal checks (list above) from here is probably practical, though it will take a while. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't really trust numerical cutoffs for this any more than I trust the same sort of argument at RfA, either for qualifying or disqualifying. Evaluating the quality of someone's work requires personal judgment. The way to look on this list is as a starting point for those of us interested and willing to look at the non-nimerical aspects also to find people to consider. Insertcleverphrasehere, I would strongly discourage any attempt at automatically suggesting based on the list. I want to thank you for making it, but it will be useful enough as just a list of possibilities. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@DGG:I want to make this absolutely clear: no invites are going to happen without personal checks on the non-numerical criteria. This list is a starting point, and if you check the list page (User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR_invite_list) it says so. What additional criteria to check is a bit nebulous, but yes they need to happen, and no automated invite is going to happen. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

right. I just thought the discussion above needed to be unambiguously clarified. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC) �

• From the last time we had a recruitment drive, one thing I remember was that we had a lot of people with pie charts that were well in the 90s in terms of percentage of mainspace edits. That was very difficult for me as an admin reviewing at PERM to deal with, because NPR normally involves things such as interacting with other users on user talk pages and understanding policy and applying it in project space. There were several I passed over (didn't decline) because there wasn't a way I could make a judgement about them. I think that there are a lot of good contributors on the English Wikipedia who meet this criteria, but have no interest in new page patrolling, and getting them to sign up for it won't help. For what we can do in terms of recruitment, I'd look through the village pump, AfD, etc. for people who don't have the flag (popups will tell you) and invite them to apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:@Kudpung:@DGG:, I did this quite a bit in my first run (inviting from Village pump and AfD), but most of these people are already NPRs or Admins, so 9 times out of 10 you check a user and they already have the rights. A lot of users with a lot of mainspace editing experience might be great patrollers if they decide to join though. I think a trial period as suggested by Kudpung would resolve the issue with users with no experience in the wikipedia space, following which they would need to re-apply and would be judged by their trial period tenure. If they don't use the tools in this period, then they probably won't notice them missing, and in any case if they requested again they would either be declined or given another probationary period. I'd be happy even with a shorter probation period, say 30 days, after which they need to re-apply based on their experience so far. If users have extensive experience with AfD or AfC that demonstrates competency, then the probationary period might be waved.

On a side note I updated the list (User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR_invite_list) with links to all the subpages needed to check additional criteria (using some Excel and template wizardry) so it should be much easier to check the additional manual criteria now. I've started checking users, and if Legacypac wants to help out, that's fine too. Not sending any invites just yet, just checking the users on the list from the top down and recording the results of the checks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

​Just finished doing manual checks on the top 20; 14 passed the checks, 6 failed. Notes included on the list page. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Newsletter

The draft looks good to me. Last night there was something I thought could be added, but I can't think of it now. I think you hit all the major highlights. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

A new translator seeking advice

Dear Kudpung,

A day ago I was on the Tearoom getting help on contributing to Wikipedia, and Nick Moyes kindly pointed me towards your experience in translation. Today I enhanced this article on the Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug, and put a fair amount of effort into researching the topic to find the right words, especially as I haven't a great knowledge of military jargon. Your proofreading and feedback would be most highly appreciated, and I would be willing to learn any and all things to improve my writing and formatting skills.

Kindest regards,

A Lambent Eye (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

A Lambent Eye, it looks good. I have made a couple of small tweaks, but you will need to place inline citations. See WP:CITE for details. You must also attribute the source language. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall give it my best. A Lambent Eye (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi Kudpung,

I'm happy to amend the article but I do not think it needs to be deleted. This is an artist that is very important among contemporary designers. In telling this artists story, I had to point to available articles on this internet. If you tell me what needs to be changed I will change it immediately. Thanks SS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serenesage (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, Serenesage, but please see the red banner at the top of this page. Sources are all promotional or primary. The leads reads like a typical exhibition catalog entry, full of peacock expressions. I have searched for in-depth independent sources in reliable mainstream media and have found none. The article is a promotional exercise for a jewelery business and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the banner Kudpung and I am reworking the text to adhere to Wikipedia standards. I did put independent links from established independent sources i.e. Interview Magazine and Vogue as well as several books but I will look for other sources.

This article is not about a company, it's about an individual who is an artist. Mentioning career milestones wasn't meant to promote those companies. The aim is to tell the story of the artist and how they came to have the career they have while mentioning notable events in their career. I will continue to work on the text.

You have a conflict of interest and you should not be writing an article about a person or subject you represent. This is an encyclopedia, it is not for promotional language ('world renowned') and sources must strictly adhere to WP:BLP requirements for WP:ARTIST. Primary sources may corroborate some details but they do not assert notability (interviews, press releases, exhibition catalogues, etc., and any other sources where the subject has provided the content are primary sources). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Hi. You deleted my new entry for the Noise Act 1996 on the basis that it lacks adequate sources. I cited the source, which is the UK government's official site for Acts of Parliament. There cannot possibly be any need for another source. While I understand the need for editors, and I appreciate the time that Wikipedia editors contribute, this feels to be the sort of thoughtless and dumb editing that puts off many who would otherwise contribute, although I am certain that this was not the feeling you intended to create. Would you kindly restore what you have destroyed, or else explain why you doubt the veracity of the UK government's official website? I agree we should all be highly suspicious of government, but this is absurd. If you are in Malvern drop in because I would like to discuss this face to face.

Signed on web by "Troilus&Criseyde" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troilus&Criseyde (talk • contribs) 09:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Troilus&Criseyde I'll take my time investigating this. I'm a volunteer and I do not appreciate your tone. I may look into it on Monday. Even if I were in Malvern, I doubt that I should wish to meet you. Please also see the notes at the top of this page and the banner in the bottom right hand corner and click this link: WP:AGF. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It didn't take much time. The article has not been deleted. Please read the message again that is on your talk page and read WP:My first article to learn what is required by Wikipedia. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did that sound like a threat? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibly a kid from the Chase or Dysons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The local comps? Yes, I see what you mean. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Pal - we're all volunteers, spare us the virtue signalling. You may not like my tone, chum, and I certainly don't like having a perfectly good entry deleted. It is significant that you are the sort of person who is terrified of having an adult face to face conversation. You are wasting my time and I will not engage with you any further.

Signed on web by "Troilus&Criseyde" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troilus&Criseyde (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Troilus&Criseyde. Please read the messages properly - the article has never been deleted. No one has a right to insist that an imperfect article (or other contributions) be retained in mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow User:Triolus&Criseyde with that attitude I predict a short time on Wikipedia. We are all volunteers and we have standards we agree to follow. Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, best if you copy your message to his talk page. I don't think he'll be coming back here. I know Malvern like the back of my hand, I even wrote the article on it but he can't even be bothered to see that it's quite obvious where I live. He's welcome to come here ;) It's also obvious that I've met 1,000s of Wikipedians in various places around the world. The world is a bigger place than the Pound Bank estate.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Editor recreate the same article

Hi Kudpung, Good day. I came across many times that editor (especially new ones) had created a page on main page without a single source and reviewers moved the article to draft space. Instead attempting to improve the draft article to meet the GNG and provide reliable source, the editor would just create another copy with same subject and content in the main space again. I encountered at times I could re-move the article back to draft space (I believe that would only possible if the previous move was without leaving a redirect behind - pls correct me if I am wrong here). However, at times, I can not move the page back to draft as there is an existing draft copy by the same author and title name. In this case, what is the protocol/procedure or what options do we have besides tagging the page without source and the page would sit there without being reviewed? Thanks in advance of your advice. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talp) 22:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, Please provide links to the drafts or articles in question so that I can investigate fully. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kudppung, Thanks of the quick reply. Example here Felipe Wamenson - Draft:Deus Nos Acuda created on 10:40, May 23, 2018‎ and was moved to draft page by you. User recreate the page Deus Nos Acuda on 19:53, May 23, 2018‎ . Cheers. I tried to move the page back to draft space but system didnt allow such action and upon checking a draft copy was found. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I'll look into it. I have tools that may be able to do something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, Thank you. Let me know should I come to you every time I encounter such situation, or there is a place I could put an entry to report "two exact copies (draft and main space) made by same author" and admin would able to help out. Thank you Kudpung. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, I have deleted the original draft and moved he mainspace recreation back to draft. I'm not sure if this has ever happened before. If he moves it back to mainspace again, well take it from there. In general, the best place to bring up issues like these is at :WT:NPR, but you are always welcome to contact me direct. It's possible that Wamenson does not understand English, they have a raft of warnings on their talk page. The article has obviously bee translated from somewhere, probably from this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, thank you for your assistance and quick action. May be the editor did not understand/aware of the the tag, but I have encountered many times other editors did the same thing and continue to move the draft to the mainspace (articles from NPP) as they are auto confirmed editors. Thank you and will contact you or go to NPP discussion board. Once again thank you and have a good day. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

Edit request

Hi. I have requested a protection for Avi Buffalo page, same has been approved and attended by yourself. Thank you. However, the article's last edit needs to be reverted as the R... word is still exists in the first line. If Avi is a Rapper I am not sure but what is in the article is not a right word and there is no reference for that. Unfortunately I am not allowed to edit protected articles. Thanks for your time. Gharouni ^Talk 14:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have taken care of it - removed the word and revdel'ed the contributions where it appears. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

French article

Since you are a en-fr transaltor, you might be interested in transalting fr:Amélie Diéterle. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for as king L293D, but I generally do this for living persons or contemporary topics, and at the moment with my other Wikipedia commitments I just don't have time . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

retired

i gotten my npr flag revoked unilaterally and my 100 curation gone waste. and i don't wish to say anymore. i will be {{retired}} wef Quek157 (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Derogatory comments

Hi. Hate to bug you, but could you please revdel this post. Pretty vulgar. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Onel5969 This is obvious trolling but while I realise that machine translations are often inaccurate, I can't see anything blatantly offecsive in this. If you are fluent in Vietnamese and it has a particularly nefarious meaning in Vietnamese culture, please email me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red June Editathons

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Images for Grimpoteuthis hippocrepium

Hello! You asked for a photo of G. hippocrepium on its page. I'm no good at copyright, but I found a photo that might work--a drawing of the octopus made by its discoverer in 1904. Also, here's a public-domain drawing of the octopus' internal shell. Thanks! --Kravk (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kravk, Hoyle's Grimpoteuthis hippocrepium is in the public domain, thus free to use. You can check to see if it is already on Commons. If not, you can upload it there and use it in the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Food for thought...

If we ever needed a "stop-breathe-think" kind of an admin, then the RfA candidate Pbsouthwood is that person. My decision is not only based on my interaction with him during a GA & FA review, but because of his RL profession as a commercial diver (see his user page) - it's the extreme in an already extreme activity. There are few situations in RL where life or death is as dependent on one's ability to maintain calm, in full control of all thought processes, and the ability to make the right decision at a moment's notice than commercial diving in extreme underwater environments. In recreational diving, the first thing we teach our students is STOP-BREATHE-THINK. Give it some thought, Kudz. Atsme📞📧 12:41 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I used to fly airplanes - is there a similarity? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hell yeah, and you're also an excellent admin - my point proven. 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Help?

I read somewhere recently, though I cannot find the post, that you are fluent in Catalan and wondered if that meant you have familiarity with Spanish. I have an article on Carmen Casco de Lara Castro which has been languishing at GA review since September 2017. As all of the sourcing is in Spanish, I believe that may well be one of the reasons the article has not been reviewed. I was wondering if you might be willing to review the article, or make a recommendation of someone who might be willing to review it. Thank you. SusunW (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, SusunW. I'm not perfectly fluent in either, certainly not triligual as I am with English, French, and German. I'm very busy at the moment but when I get a moment I'll take a look. In the meantime, you could use Google Translate. As far as Spanish and English are concerned, Google's results are fairly accurate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Kudpong, I possibly didn't explain it well. I wrote the article. I am trying to find someone to review it according to the GA criteria, who speaks Spanish. But I totally understand that you are too busy. Thanks anyway. SusunW (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @SusunW: Mayne leave a message at WT:SPAIN? Bound to be editors there who can do both! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SusunW, I fully understood what you were asking and I know you wrote it. In fact I've just spent an hour looking at to see if I would want to GA review it. The Spanish is not a problem for me but right now it's a question of time. A thorough review of an article like this can take several hours - even for GA - and that would keep you waiting too long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung it has been waiting the length of a full term pregnancy now. LOL A day, a week, another month isn't an issue, I'd be happy if someone just said they would review it. I want someone to do it who will be thorough and give me constructive feedback to improve it if it needs that. I truly do thank you for looking at it and understand the constraints of time. SusunW (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

SusunW, well, let's give it a birth then. I'll take it on, but I won't be able to do it in the generally required 7 days. You'll have to bear with me (pun?). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so very much. As I said, no rush and no pressure on you to complete it in any given time frame. SusunW (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)