User talk:Kudpung/Archive Sep 2015

Query about Page Deletion

Hi Kudpung,

I am new to Wikipedia, recently I created a page named Khurshid Ali Khan (Singer), he is a renowned Indian Singer from Ghazal Genre. By i can't understand why i am getting notice for deletion of the page, can you please tell me in layman language :)

Salmanalikhan17 (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. There is a discussion starting soon at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khurshid Ali Khan (Singer). It's because there are no sources supporting the content of the article. Three places you need to look at for more advice are: WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE - I know those links don't mean much to you yet, but when you click on them and read the pages, you'll soon get the hang of it. To see a typical biography with plenty of footnotes and references, see Charles Skepper. Don't hesitate to ask me for any further adbice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your kind reply, can you please check my article again and tell me if it has sufficient references ??? and please do check weather my article is violating any rule? Salmanalikhan17 (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't actually 'violate' any rules, but it does not comply with the requirement that everything that is said in Wikipedia about a living person must be proven to be true. We do that by adding links to very reliable, independent sources. If there aren't any such sources available, the person might well be notable but we can't have an article about them in Wikipedia. You must now really click those links I gave you and read up about it. That's the only way to do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok Thanks!!! Salmanalikhan17 (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

One more question, if you don't mind. I think the article has enough references from reliable sources so when will the notice be removed? or I have to removed it myself?? Salmanalikhan17 (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The notice must nt be removed until the discussion has ended at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khurshid Ali Khan (Singer). Discussions tae 7 days or longer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Fluffernutter's page

Just undid & reported some trolling. Think it could be related to the user you previously redacted the comments of from it? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Just been indeffed. Quick work! Cheers anyway _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about school article

Hello, I stumbled upon your name and see that you are an "expert" on articles about schools. I asked another editor for help several days ago with St. Paul's School, but never heard back from him. I assume he's either very busy or just not interested. Anyway, I let him know that I've sought help from someone very knowledgeable about these types of articles. Can you please take a look at the entire St. Paul's School article? Lootbrewed (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On August 20, an editor named Fred_Bauder created a section called "Socialization". All the content in the section was contributed by that one editor and is derived completely from one book written by an alumnus of the school named Shamus Khan. When I first saw and read the section, it struck me as quite inappropriate to devote an entire section to the opinions of one man written in one book, regardless of whether he attended the school or not. Also very concerning is the fact that some of the content is even written in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps it's relevant to note that the editor and I were having a discussion on the article's talk page about an unrelated matter, and I made the comment to him that "my only concern is assuring that only reliably-sourced, encylopedic content is included" in the article. His response surprised me and seems to explain his motivation for adding the socialization content (which he had already done over a week earlier). He said, "My interest is more sociological than anything else; I read Shamus Khan's book Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School. According to Khan boys on scholarship, like Owen Labrie, sometimes don't fit in because they try too hard rather than having, or acquiring, the ease associated with successful socialization at St. Paul's. Seems to be true in his case." (As you may know from news recently, Owen Labrie is the recent St. Paul's graduate who was just convicted on rape charges.) Lootbrewed (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

After having reviewed the socialization content, I decided to read the entire article to see if there's any other content that perhaps is inappropriate. In my opinion, what I found was an enormous amount of other existing content that doesn't belong, and sounds like it was written either by St. Paul's students/alumni or the school's public relations people. And a lot of it, by the way, is also unsourced. There's a large amount of what appears to me to be clearly non-encylopedic information about routine activities, programs, and facilities, which seems to essentially be original research. For example, there's an entire lengthy section detailing each and every dormitory, and another detailed section devoted solely to the "Advanced Studies Program", which I feel should be limited to just a sentence and included in an "Academics" or similar section (which doesn't exist). I think you'll see exactly what I'm talking about regarding all the non-encylopedic content if you look at these sections: "Dormitories", "Daily life", "Religion", "Traditions", and "Advanced Studies Program". As you can see, this would be a require a significant cleanup since it involves a high percentage of the article's total content. I don't know if my hunch about all this is correct, or if I'm way off base, so I didn't remove any of the content. This is why I'm hoping you could determine which content is fine and which should be removed. Thanks so much for your time. Lootbrewed (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am the a coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. As soon as I can figure out who is posting what here, I'll address the issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. All of the above is from me. I didn't want to have one, very long paragraph. I didn't know I was supposed to sign each paragraph; I've never seen that done before by people who post multiple paragraphs. Anyways, thanks again for your help on this! Lootbrewed (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You don't need to sign every paragraph but I'm still curious to know which part of it was posted by Fred Bauder or am I missing something? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I changed the spacing so this discussion would show up in my contributions. I added nothing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean which part of "it" was posted by Fred Bauder? I posted all the above comments on your talk page. And as I indicated above, all of the Socialization section in the article was posted by Fred Bauder, and he started the section on August 20.[1] But my concern isn't about who contributed the content, but rather if the content is appropriate. And all the other sections I alluded to were written by numerous editors over the years. I am just asking for you to read the whole article and determine what belongs in an encylopedia article and what doesn't. By the way, you don't need to leave messages on my talk page; I'm following this page. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lootbrewed. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant which parts of the big message above were posted by you and which parts were posted by Fred Bauder - why do you think Bauder has been editing my talk page?. I'm quite happy to look into this and even get the help of our WPSCH members because it's more than just determining what belongs in an encylopedia article and what doesn't - I've read the article and I certainly have my own interpretation that some of it might be less appropriate, plus we have the WP:WPSCH/AG, but it's likely to end up as a content dispute - something that I would prefer not to make a unilateral judgement over so I'm pinging CT Cooper too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said Bauder was editing your page. I said that Bauder created the "Socialiation" section in the St. Paul's School article that I'm writing about. As I said above, "I posted all the above comments on your talk page", so all of the "big message" was written by me. I even signed all the paragraphs above because I thought you wanted me to sign each paragraph I wrote. But, wait a minute, I just looked at the diff you included and I had no idea that Bauder had been here and made that one edit. It looks like he removed a space from my comment for some reason. I'm perplexed about why he did that, but if you look at the revision history of your talk page, you can see all the comments in this thread are from me. So, putting aside that covert mystery edit from Bauder haha... I simply want you (and any others you choose) to look at the St. Paul's School article and see what doesn't belong. Many school articles that aren't viewed much contain a lot of "junk" that doesn't belong because students or adults associated with the school add information that they don't realize isn't important enough to be in an encylopedia, but I've never seen a school article that has such a large amount of what I believe is non-encylopedic content. So whatever you and CT Cooper decide is fine; you guys are the experts on this. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a lot worse than the St Paul article; I've been a co-ord on the schools project for nearly 8 years and I have almost every school page on my 20,000 article watchlist and we also have a special bot that informs us of moves, PRODS CSD, AfD, etc. to them in case we missed them. However, I will stress that addressing the issues that you have quite correctly identified in St Paul might not be so easy to resolve as you might have anticipated - even with our expertise at WP:WPSCH. I'm also pinging Tedder. {{Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There are many issues with the article; not a surprise considering the nature of the student body at St. Paul's. There is a long editing history, which includes a great deal of material that students have added from time to time, most of which has been removed. The dormitories section is a good example of the sort of dubious material that remains; not necessarily wrong, but kind of fine-grained and irrelevant. Khan's book has interesting material about dormitories, for example, when he was a student the school deliberately put all non-white students in one dormitory, not to segregate them, but to create an easier environment. When he went back there to do research, that was gone, but then legacy students, who sometimes are not too popular with other students, had self segregated into their own dormitory. Probably too subtle to include in the article, but interesting. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(moving left) I've seen worse too. Here's my feedback from reviewing [this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Paul%27s_School_(New_Hampshire)&oldid=679282915]:

• There's an EL in the history section, which is generally not appropriate
• I'm okay with everything else, generally speaking, through the bottom of the "dormitories" section. In other words, it seems encyclopedic and appropriate.
• The school days/hours are only unique because of school on Saturday. The exact hours/schedules are inappropriate otherwise. In fact, the only things that are relevant in that section are 'Saturday' and 'Harkness method'.
• "Socialization"? Um. I'm mildly biased against including any of it, mostly because what is described is fairly standard upper-class Western culture. If St. Paul's was replaced with Yale it would ring true.
• I don't see anything in Traditions that is worthy of keeping.
• The 'controversies' are generally fine. Well-sourced. I'd suggest integrating them into the History (see WP:CRIT, though I'm not all-in on that).
• Athletics is fine. It's actually a model of the appropriate level of information.
• Advanced Studies is .. almost completely unencyclopedic. If well-sourced, the approximate size and admission rate could be kept, but that doesn't warrant a full section.

Feel free to edit this for formatting and context and paste it into the school's talk page if you like. I don't want to be involved any more directly, but I thought it was worthwhile to give my feedback. tedder (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

• Special report: Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Flow placed on ice

• Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments

• Featured content: Brawny

• In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage

• Traffic report: You didn't miss much

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen banning himself from ANI

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Encyclopedia_Lu&oldid=679400700

--112.79.35.21 (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: CVUA

Hey, Kudpung! Thanks for the note. Yes, I'm a bit struggling to stay active and may not take trainees at the moment. You can see the reasons here, I would also appreciate your opinion on that thread if you feel that I'm eligible to get a scholarship and deserves an endorsement from you! Cheers! Jim Carter 12:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the message you left; on the advice of Voceditenore, I left off the matter but as you noted, the "discussion" continued. I have chosen not to respond to what clearly was "baiting", therefore you will not hear anything more from me concerning this matter.

Thank you for your understanding and assistance. Warm regards,Parenchyma18 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Parenchyma18, you have shown admirable restraint in not responding to the editor's latest message on your talk page after you expressly requested her not to continue posting there unless it was about content edits. The editor's behaviour is indeed baiting and has started to verge on harassment. I have archived all of her discussions on my own talk page to discourage any further attempts there. I was also concerned about the comments she made there about her relationship with Bazinet. Frankly, they came very close to a violation of our policy on biographies of living persons, which applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just their article. If you'd like, I can help you archive your talk page as well. Alternatively, you can simply delete without comment any inappropriate messages she posts in future as well as her latest one. I also suggest you paste {{NOINDEX}} on the top of both your talk page and your user page. It doesn't show on the actual pages, but keeps them out of Google and most other external search engines. I put it on all the pages in my user space. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore, I think I would like to apply that option ((NOINDEX)). How do I go about doing that? Your advice and assistance is much appreciated, thanks ever so much! Parenchyma18 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Yes, and I would also think it prudent I archive the discussions on my talk page, as you suggest; not knowing my way around very well, I certainly will need assistance in that regard! Thank you, again, for your kind words and support.Parenchyma18 (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your comments are, in my opinion, absolutely without merit, Voceditenore. If you do not consider the original comments Parenchyma18 made on the Bazinet talk page as "baiting" then I believe you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word. I think Parenchyma18 joined Wikipedia expressly to attempt to destroy my credibility, which doesn't concern me as much as the act itself, which was performed in such a way as to purposely cause me embarrassment and that was unconscionable. No one here knows what I went through with René Bazinet and it's none of anyone's business. For someone to contentiously come up here to deliberately open Pandora's Box and Voceditenore to cite me and not them for their comments regarding Bazinet clearly shows extreme bias, as far as I'm concerned. I wish to go on record as saying that if someone had simply extended me the courtesy of deleting my pictures, of Bazinet, when I politely asked for them to do so none of the following would have occurred... Blythe Spirit (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary Comments

I just want to go on record as saying that I don't appreciate any of your comments on the René Bazinet talk page. If some contentious troll had challenged your credibility, after simply joining Wikipedia to make trouble for you, it would most likely make you as mad as a hatter too. Quite frankly and happily I no longer have -any- affiliation with the fringe dweller artist whose picture of mine adorns his page. My problems began when I tried to get all three of my pictures of him deleted. However, I wasn't extended the courtesy, following a brutal process on Wikimedia, where I was treated in an overall uncivilized manner by several members, there, some of whom didn't even bother reading about the issue and just made unfair assumptions and accusations. It's all on record and if you actually care to take the time to read the entire collection of threads, with an open mind, you'll realize how poorly I was treated. In my opinion Voceditenore was one of the most badly behaved of the bunch, as she began by unkindly challenging the dyslexia condition I suffer from and went on from there to make the ordeal a most unpleasant experience for me. She is far from an innocent by-stander and your comments regarding situations, you are not at all well versed in, are therefore uncalled for and completely unnecessary. Since my picture is still on Bazinet's page and no one will allow me to delete it I've been attempting to at least have the information beneath it read correctly, but to no avail, so I'm simply through trying, which will no doubt come as a relief to Voceditenore... Blythe Spirit (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

School outcomes

Thanks for the notices on my talk page regarding two school AFDs. Thanks also for comments in recent school-related AFDs that suggest REDIRECT and for recent "deprod-and-redirect" edits you made to articles I PRODded. As a result of me seeing your edits, I pretty much stopped sending schools to AFD or PRODding without checking for a reasonable redirect target and started and started redirecting them if possible and only PRODding them only if I didn't see a good target.

For the two articles you mentioned on my talk page, I had specific reasons for going to AFD, which are included in the deletion rationale. In each case, either a previous PROD or change-to-redirect was undone at some time in the past. I sent them to AFD with a preference for some sort of REDIRECT but with the "weight/authority" of an AFD to back it up.

I would welcome a review of my recent PROD- and redirect-related contributions. An incomplete list of PRODs is in User:Davidwr/PROD log. If you find any recent school-related PRODs that have an obvious REDIRECT target that I missed (there are a few where I forgot to check the city/community page for any mention of the PRODded article or a place where such a mention could reasonably be added) please redirect them.

On a related note, I plan on going through the United States elementary-school and middle-school categories over the next few weeks and redirecting or PRODing all articles that, as written, would be a snow-delete if sent to AFD. The most common reasons I've found to not redirect-or-PROD such an article are 1) the school once had high school grades (I'm seeing this a lot in Roman Catholic schools) and 2) schools that have won a major award, like the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program award. Less commonly, I'll give a school a "pass" if 3) it's over a century old or has other hints of being more than locally well-known and I don't have the time to research it (if all of these went to AFD, far more than half would probably wind up being deleted, but far too many would be kept for me to act without researching first). I haven't run across any International Baccalaureate or similarly-well-credentialed pre-high-school schools yet but I probably wouldn't delete them without checking for sources and maybe checking old AFDs of such schools first. User:davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi davidwr. Your criteria for what you do seem solid enough although just having the Internatinal Bac in the programme is nothing outstanding. Being a Blue Ribbon school might add to notabilty but probably not to a very short stub for which no further references can be found. Being over a century old? Well, in he UK thousands of primary schools are over 100 years old - remember that 100 years ago was as recent as 1916 which was only 30 years before I was born. Nearly all our UK and European village schools were in existence by then and there's nothing special about them. When redirecting, always remember to place the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page so that it automatically populates the category.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be mainly doing US schools for now, I have a better idea of what is likely to get WP:SIGCOV than I do for non-US schools. I've already started copying your example (well, someone's recent example) of using {{R from school}}. I'm not saying schools over 100 years old are notable or even likely to be notable - I'm just saying that enough of them are that I am reticent to blindly redirect or PROD them without Google-ing them first, and sometimes I get in a rapid-fire mode and don't bother to Google an article about a seemingly-local-interest-only school that would snow-fail at AFD in its current state. When I'm in that mode, anything that makes me thing "this deserves at least a Google search" will result in me skipping on to the next school if I'm in "rapid-fire" mode. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

mode or mood? ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant "mode" but come to think of it, it's probably both. As in "I'm in the mood to be in that mode." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to WP:ADMIN regarding paid editing

You recently commented on a brainstorm that discussed banning administrators from paid editing. A concrete proposal to amend the administrator policy to this effect has been made at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed change - 'No paid editing" for admins. Your comments would be appreciated. MER-C 08:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

afc replacement

re: this, Can you give me links to the discussion, about consensus for replacing AfC , with AfC 2.0 , or whatever the new thing is going to be called? I think I missed out on the conversation.  :-)   75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You probably did. One of the advantages of having an account are our notification systems and watchlists. As of course you know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've been around the wiki-block before. And yes, the lack of watchlist is one of the main downsides to editing as an anon. One of the few things that might tempt me to create an account someday.  :-)     But at the moment, for philosophical reasons, I'm still trying to remain anon, to widen the bell curve. (Truth be told I find the idea of the notifications-thing annoying though; if I did have a watchlist, it would be one I reviewed manually, when I had made time, rather than something were I would want to get emailed *every* time somebody fiddled with a page I was watchlisting *at* the time they made the change. Digest-mode in other words.) Anyways, can you please point me to the URL, or if you don't happen to have it offhand, give me some search-keyword-hints that will lead me in the right direction? I work the IRC channel sometimes, and about 75% of the people that show up there are AfC-declines who click the chat-with-a-helper button. Thus, I'm curious about what the AfC 2.0 thing will look like, if and when it gets put into place. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know you've been round the Wiki block and I don't believe the new plan is quite ready for sharing yet.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Gasp! WP:TIAC!  ;-)     As you wish, but in that case, you should probably call it 'local consensus' rather than consensus-without-qualification, since the widely-shared-aspect is what makes consensus. If you remember, when AfC 2.0 details are ready for wider sharing, ping my talkpage if you like. Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to say thanks for granting me the rollback rights. I promise you that I'll use it for reverting vandalism. Again, thanks. Ayub407^talk 15:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

GPC

Hi Kudpung, how do we get a new category on Wikipedia for at the bottom of biographies, I'm thinking of one for RAF airmen who were badly burned and had plastic surgery at East Grinstead becoming members of the Guinea Pig Club. I just stumbled across an article on "Jackie Mann" DFM Beirut hostage and realized that although Wiki has an article on the GPC it doesn't have a category to collect the members. Richard Hillary would be another and Geoff Page DSO DFC. Your advice would be appreciated. Thank you R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Read up on categories at WP:CAT. If the number of articles is likely to be low, a nav box may be the best solution, see WP:CLN. Also check out WP:Archive - it's best not to try and add messages to archives because this can mess things up; simply start a new thread on the current page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

NPP/N

Can you clarify what you meant here? VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

PLease accept my appologies, VQuakr. I have created so many pages for NPP and associated projects I thought it was one of them.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly accepted. I had to check the history to see if my memory was right, because you indeed have contributed so much to NPP that I wasn't sure. VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

According to the edit summary here [2] that reads, "Rmv all non-encylopedic content + other cleanup per assessment by WikiProject Schools coordinator", you alone okay-ed the removal of a large amount of content from an article. Could you please explain how such a decision made by one editor is license for another editor to gut an article after discussion at an editor's talk page rather than seeking consensus at the talk page of the article in question? Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, this appears to me to be a grave misunderstanding on how Wikipedia works by the editor. I am going to revert it back to your version and offer a bit of edumacation to the editor. Kudpung, I do hope you will weigh in at the article talk page. I see no consensus, but I do see a potential BLP issue. Full protection might be in order until this is resolved. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I don't think it's a grave misunderstanding at all. I believe it's a power play by that editor because of his disagreements over the article with Fred Bauder. He came to Kudpung's talk page originally because of his "position" as both an administrator and coordinator of WikiProject Schools. As a side note: I'm not sure that Lootbrewed has yet figured out that Fred Bauder is an administrator, as he does not have the admin topicon at his user space. Look at the editing history at the article over the last few days and also note that Lootbrewed was blocked for edit warring at the article a few days ago. Whatever the case, I don't think this was a misunderstanding at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I was being "charitable". Just basically, I wanted you to understand that I saw no wrongdoing in Kudpung's action. That article is a cesspool, despite the other editors assessment above. I've trying my best to avoid it. John from Idegon (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping charitability was what you were offering, rather than not seeing what was really happening. As far as Kudpung's role in this, I think he has been used in this whole thing, actually. He really committed no "action" other than offering an opinion. It was the other editor who took it to the next level. As I stated above in my original post, I wanted an explanation for the edit summary, as the other editor was claiming they were allowed to do what they did because Kudpung said so. Whether he really did "say so" is yet to be seen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Read up the page. He said no such thing. With that, I'm out. For the first time since I've been here, I am going to remove a school not in New Jersey from my watchlist. I just don't have time for the drama, same reason I don't watch schools in NJ. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

John from Idegon, please drop the shield of defense for Kudpung, it's truly not necessary. If you read exactly what I've written so far in this talk section, you would see what I'm actually saying (here's a hint: the word "claiming" is key here). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, please see this discussion on Tedder's talk page for context. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

John, it was actually Tedder who provided the thorough review and feeback I was seeking.[3] Kudpung never got a chance to do that. For the record, had Tedder said all the content in the article is acceptable, I would not have removed any content at all. But his explanations happened to be precisely in line with mine for most of it; that a lot of it simply wasn't important enough for an encylopedia. I thought a few other bits of content weren't necessary either, but I left them in the article since he didn't mention any objections to them. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mistake?

I patrol pages often and the Rollback page (watchlisted as I requested some time ago), might have a teensey tiny mistake you made. So here you said you gave the user the right but the user did not get the right. Whereas the commenting user got the right here when he had withdrawn his request prior. Anyways I took note and just wanted to let you know, I mean no harm Kudpung (: just wanted to let you know! Many Thanks. --CyberWarfare (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up CyberWarfare. I knew something was wrong because some of the requests were out of sync, probably due to another user incorrectly posting their request, and I couldn't figure out what was wrong and couldn't get back to it immediately. I believe I have fixed everything now. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

St. Margaret's Primary School

You may want to watchlist this page. After the histmerge is done I plan on redirecting it to a suitable target. If the guy you mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Anthony's Primary School undoes the redirect, it will go to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It already is. I have all school articles on my wl and we also have a special bot that tells me of all changes and tags to school articles. That said, If I am absent for a day or two I might not see it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Histmerge complete, I WP:BOLDly redirected it, now let's see if it sticks, if it gets reverted and improved to demonstrate notability (which is of course the best outcome for notable topics), or if it winds up at AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

NPP user right

Maybe the Orangemoody case will be the catalyst needed to add a NPP user permission? Feel free to weigh in here and cross-link any parallel proposals. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A user right was supposed to have been introduced concomitant with the launch of the new Page Curation system 2 years ago but I took a short break and it never got done. It's now already in the pipeline and a draft for the RfC is being finalised and just waiting for some tables and stats to support trhe argument. Note also that we acjieved a consensus to merge AfC to NPP some months ago but also due to a discussion that still has to take place on the addition of the criteria and template comments to the Curation Toolbar it did not get enacted because we are still (yes, still) waiting to find out who is now ultimately responsible for the code and/or maintenance of the suite of curation tools. All the senior staff who were involved in its develpment have all gone in a sudden recent exodus. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Le sigh. Nothing ever happens fast around here, huh? Well, I do think there may be a "momentum" advantage to be had here so now may be the time to implement the RfC. Do you need help with anything? I don't code in any modern language but I am decent with Excel. VQuakr (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've actually been on to it for several weeks even before the news of Orangemoody broke. See User talk:samtar#NPP and follow the links and you'll see what I've got done so far. Scottywong used to do all this for us but he's now retired.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Meetups in Liverpool and Manchester

See you there?

Hi there! Do you know that there will be meetups in Liverpool on the 27th of September and in Manchester on the 25th of October?

We have sent you this message because you signed up at meta:Meetup/Manchester. If you would rather not receive such messages on future, please remove your name from the list.

Yaris678 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:PERM - clerking

User:RMS52 still appears to be clerking at [4]. I just wanted to let you know because it looks like you had warned him not long ago about this issue. --JustBerry (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Change of AP right

The change of AP threshold to 25 has already been implemented by IJBall after no opposition whatsoever to the idea at the policy village pump for over a month. Is there a reason that Wikipedia:Autopatrolled/RfC to change threshold is necessary? If no-one has opposed since the implementation, it seems like process for the sake of process when a highly visible discussion already took place. ~ Rob^Talk 03:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13, The implementation was out of process, such changes call for a proper RfC. The problems with Ball's practically unilateral change to policy is already having a negative effect at PERM. I have already reverted his changes. See User talk:IJBall. In my opinion, we can't just have a tiny handful of editors deciding such issues among themselves without inviting the broader community to comment - particularly where the 'proposer' was neither an admin nor a regular New Page Patroller. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. ~ Rob^Talk 11:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your recent reversion of the change in the article threshold at WP:Autopatrolled. One of us is right here, and I'd like a wider review to determine exactly who that is.. The thread is "Requesting Administrator review". Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinvest Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

hey Kudpung - I'd very much like to understand why this page was put up for deletion, appreciate the time you are taking out for this.

Please let me know how I can avoid speedy deletions as well.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njd0505 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Two admins reached the conclusion that the article was a) not about a notable subject, b) purely promotional. The deletion log reads:

Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Pinvest Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, A7).

What is your connection with this article? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

hey - the article is about a firm I am associated with, we wanted to have a wikipedia link so that if anyone searches for more information, they are directed to this page. I understand now after have gone through G11, A7 that it would seem like self-promotion of a page/person and hence it was put up for speedy deletion.

I would like to know - how do I create a page for a firm that is well known in smaller circles today but has the potential to reach out to a much wider audience. The intention is not to promote but to have an authentic wiki page that tracks how the company started, its root, work etc.

Please let me know if I have understood the concerns correctly and if there is still a way for us to create a wiki page for Pinvest Consulting Pvt. Ltd.? Look forward to hearing from you..

Replied on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Revival Selena Gomez

No, actually, it wasn't intentional: I just didn't check what I had done. イヴァンスクルージ九十八 _{（トーク）} 14:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

confused by the lack of consistency in editing new articles

Hi Kudpung I am confused by the lack of consistency in editing new articles, do editors here just “do their own thing” ? Is there no clear standard ? This time another US based editor has “vigorously” edited my recent article in the “Great Escapers” series regarding “Sandy Gunn”, removing pertinent information, removing a link which another editor had asked me to include in all of this series (pointing to “Stalag Luft III murders” which is the central hub article), removing a link to a free on-line historic newspaper page which has biographical material on this officer and other “Great Escapers”, and directed a link from my article to a wrong person (I have since corrected that). This material had been deemed acceptable in the other 16 articles in the series I've done. I have replaced the link which a previous editor (who has subject knowledge) asked me to include, but nothing else out of respect for the latest editors position here. I very politely asked the US based editor for advice, as you know I’m new here and picking this up as quickly as I can. The editor asked me to put my query on the “talk” section for that page which I did and also let them know I’d done it. Since that time (4 days) they have dealt with other people but ignored my query. I know both yourself and the editors who have offered encouragement, like articles to be well sourced but I am now advised politely (by an editor I respect who does have subject knowledge) to offer only one source per statement. My article (Ted Thorn (RAF officer)) has just had a chunk removed which that editor viewed as irrelevant (it mentioned Thorn’s early life and that his father served in the Great War and died in WW1) – which I consider most relevant to the life of Thorn (a Battle of Britain ace who died in WW2) – although a different editor who reviewed my article concerning William Henry Franklin (also a Battle of Britain ace who died in WW2) was apparently happy with identical information on Franklin’s father who also served in the Great War and died in WW1. I have also been advised that the Audie Murphy article is an excellent example of what is required here – but I see that also makes reference to his early life, the early death of his mother and absent father. After contributing 20 plus new articles in the last 6 weeks, I have stopped adding new articles for the time being as each of these take me 6-10 hours to prepare and add sources and if each is going to be reviewed by a different standard there is little hope of me getting them “right”, whatever right is on any given day. Is there no hope of editorial consistency ? This newbie is confused by the moving goal posts. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Once an article has been created, of course anyone can edit it. I'm sure that anyone editing the articles you created are doing so in good faith although it can sometimes happen that some editors will alter text just because they don't like it and believe their own prose to be better. I only briefly reviewed your articles and I found them to be excellent contributions, but without predjudice to some of our regular copyeditors checking sources for reliability and pertinence and making other minor cleanups. I have asked one or two of the editors to chime in here because the last thing we want to do is to end up discouraging users like yourself from producing valuable new content. Let me know the names of editors who have been ignoring your messages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have now gone through the entire edit histories of all your creations and I find that generally most of the edits by others have been essential copyediting. It would be nice if they would all leave a message for a new user as I do, but such nicities are rare on Wikipedia and those who have been around a while tend to forget that they were once newbies themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice Kudpung, would I be wrong to replace the references to Thorn's father's service and death in the Great War and the standard material (on the Great Escapers series) which was removed on my Gunn article ? I have no problem with Editing - I am a published author - and see it as extremely useful when done knowledgeably and properly. The person who did the edits on Sandy Gunn is the one who is most surprising in having removed useful material and useful links and set an incorrect link and then promised to make contact if I loaded my query on the talk page of that article, but then failed to make contact. Thank you I have had a very useful contact from another editor. R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is wait until other editors chime in here. To be honest I don't have time right now to make an in-depth review and there are others who have the same experience as I do but have made copyediting their main or preferred area of focus.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm in touch with Steelpillow, I appreciate the contact . It must be bedtime there ! R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Steelpillow is one user who goes out of his way to be helpful. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easier to sweet talk folks into improving Wikipedia than to do it all by myself. ;-)

Seriously, I took a quick look at Sandy Gunn and Ted Thorn (RAF officer), and all the changes have been done in good faith (if occasionally mistaken) by responsible editors, for one reason or another. They are nice articles too, so thank you for all your effort. It looks like GenQuest (talk · contribs) is a bit busy at the moment, I'm sure it's just the kind of hiccup that grabs everybody from time to time. I restored one bit for Ted Thorn (RAF officer), but if you want to restore anything else or just want to know why some particular change was made, I'd suggest you bring it up on the article talk page as I explained elsewhere. Hope this helps. Wow, still nearly two hours to bedtime! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Researcher1944. I hope you don't lose your enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia. Steelpillow put it well above. I too appreciate your effort. Keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm happy with the Ted Thorn article now, my one and only beef on that article was the removal of the fact that he lost his father in WW1. I'm trying to work through the changes to Sandy Gunn and will follow the process recommended by Steelpillow on his talk page, thanks for all your help. I'm just about to pop an article into the system on the SOE's Lysander taxi pilot, any efforts on my behalf would be appreciated, thanks R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep on keeping on, R1944. Kudpung asked my to weigh in in this discussion, although all can say really is dont be discouraged: I think most editors are generally well-intentioned & that one only occasionally comes across somebody with intentions that seem to go beyond either ading/correcting information or simple tidying up.TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks guys, your support is appreciated, I have popped several more into the system and seem to be meeting up with a helpful class of Editors too. Kudpung you mentioned going for a GA review previously, I just finished a larger article RAF Bomber Command Aircrew of World War II, how would I "go for a GA review" ? thanks R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

How can I send you a email?

Hi,

How can I send you a email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack9007 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jack9007. You have made only 4 edits to any parts of Wikipedia so I can't see what you would want to email me about. You are welcome to leave a message here. If it's about Nextiva please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva. If you post on talk pages please remember to sign your posts. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol feedback on my talk page

Hi Kudpung,

Many thanks for the feedback about me likely not having sufficient edits to be a New Page Patroller. I'd just like to assure you that I've read the associated policies in detail, and will only act on pages where I'm at least 95% (you can never be 100%!) confident of what the correct action to be taken is. I've also been active on the Encyclopedia, on and off, for the best part of 7 years. It would also be useful to have feedback on any areas where you feel I could/should improve. I do see that in order to enroll in the CVUA users generally need around 200 mainspace edits, but was wondering whether an exception could be made in my case, as I am keen to learn!

Many thanks again - and just to reassure you, all edits I make on Wikipedia are in good faith. (am watching your talk page in case of any replies, so please do feel free to reply here)

Final (small) comment - even though the message you put on my page is likely a template, it would be more courteous if you signed your name at the end of it, so people don't have to go into the edit history to get the username. (Realise this may just be an oversight, I've made many in the past, so perhaps a bit hypocritical here!) Mike1901 (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. No template - personal message. It's very rare that I don't sign a message but things can happen. Until we deploy a minimum set of qualifications for New Page Patrollers, there's nothing to stop you. New rules are coming soon though. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply - and apologies for the tone of my first message, it was written in a rush and I didn't mean at all for it to come across as sarcastic. Genuinely would be great to have any feedback on my NPP activities (whether it be 'Argh, you're doing it totally wrong, stop!' or whether there's just bits I need to brush up on). :-) (and your message is very effective as a personalised one - you see it read so well I thought it was templated! ;-) )

Oh, and for what it's worth, would support any rule change on this! (It would encourage me to contribute more to Wikipedia generally, for a start, which I love doing but just let other things get in the way!) Mike1901 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Mike1901, the new rule is likely to be at least 500 mainspace edits and an account that is at least 90 days old in order to bring it in line with the requirement for the far less important WP:AfC system. Users with less will probably not be grandfathered because it's too much work for us constantly monitoring patrollers to ensure they are pulling heir weight. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, fully behind the change still (even though it means I could not longer be involved in this particular part of anti-vandalism). Is there a centralised place where the discussion re: these changes is taking place, just out of interest? Also - is it proposed that the CVUA minimum mainspace edit count will go up accordingly? Thanks again for your help! Mike1901 (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can do vandalism patrol, but having 200 mainspace edits to enroll and then graduating from the academy or already having very significant experience gains access to the Rollback tool and I believe one or two other scipts such as Huggle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Re:New Page Patrol

Hi Kudpung,

You left a message on my talk page saying that I should not encourage users without many edits to do new pages patrol, but as far as I can remember I've never encouraged anyone to do new pages patrol. I guess your comments must have been in relation to User:TravelKing40, since both you and I have commented on his talk page. But if that was the case, then I wasn't aware that he was doing new pages patrol, and certainly didn't suggest to him that he should be doing it. I can see now looking back at his edits that he used Page Curation, which I guess means he was doing new pages patrol, but I didn't notice that at the time. Anyway, I just like to patrol PRODs and BLPPRODs to remove any that seem invalid, and I'll usually point out in an edit summary or talk page comment what policy someone should have used instead (e.g., AFD or RFD), but I'm not trying to encourage anyone to patrol new articles. Calathan (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Calathan. Yes, it was indeed in connection with TravelKing40. If you see articles that have been wrongly tagged it's a good idea to check on the patroller's editing history. Because NPP does not require a user right (this will be changed soon), chances are very strong that it's a very new user in which case rather than giving them lengthy explanations, the best course of action is to ask them to stop doing NPP and do something less demanding instead. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you on several points. BLPPROD is a confusing policy, and I often see experienced editors using it incorrectly. Regardless of someone's experience using Wikipedia, if you see someone doing something wrong, you should explain to them why it was wrong and what would have been the right course of action. It seems completely nonsensical to expect people to learn how to edit Wikipedia by not explaining things to them. Furthermore, I disagree that telling users to stop doing something they are interested in is a good course of action. Retaining new editors is important to Wikipedia's future, and giving new users instructions on how to do the things they want to do is much better than telling them to just do something else. Anyway though, I don't plan to check whether incorrect prods are from people doing NPP or from new users. I normally just give an edit summary explaining what was wrong with the PROD/BLPPROD, and sometimes a suggestion to use AFD or RFD instead. I feel that is sufficient regardless of if the user is a new or experienced user, and regardless of if they are doing NPP or just tagging one article they happened upon. Calathan (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The last thing we want is inexperienced users cutting their teeth patrolling new pages. There are other, less complicated tasks they can be doing if they really insist on starting their Wiki career by doing maintenance jobs. Wrong tags bite newbies - as you say yourself: Retaining new editors is important to Wikipedia's future. But it's not only what they tag wrongly that matters, it's also the inappropriate pages that they unwittingly patrol as OK. In the past we've had to topic ban them from doing it and in the worst cases even block them to prevent further disruption. It's all going to change soon anyway when the new user right for NPP gets deployed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Page patrol

At first i thought i should to listen to you, but this User talk:Heenarani111 created a nasty situation for my new page patrolling experience and i must stay here. --Action Hero Shoot! 17:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Action Hero. I don't quite understand your message. Heenarani111 has been indef blocked and I see no connection with your work. I do see however that there is a increasing number of issues with your patrolling since I spoke to you. NPP is really not for beginners and I do think you should stop patrolling now and try some easier maintenance tasks. We will soon be introducing new rules for patrollers, probably hat they will need at least 500 mainspace edits and have been registered for at least 3 months. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sir, i reported the user to AIV to stop her. And i requested salting the pages and blacklisting the phone numbers. People disagree with me but at the end 98% of the pages i marked for speedy deletion got deleted. You are right: at the beginning i made mistakes. I nominated schools, deans of universities for deletion and users told me about WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and that the head of a university, President of Universities are notable. I agree with 500 mainspace edits and users have been registered for at least 3 months should become new page patrollers. Actually if i see any unwanted page i can't resist using Twinkle to nominate.

I have another suggestion "Only autoconfirmed users with 50 mainspace edits will be allowed to create articles directly". Any article created by new users with zero reference will be moved to the user's sandbox or Draft.

And pages created by administrators will appear in a separate page. In new page patrol i can see so many pages created by Materialscietist, BDD and Ymblanter. Action Hero Shoot! 06:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to learn that measures to increase the requirement at 'autoconfirmed' are already in discussion and it will probably be more than just 50 edits. Nevertheless, I would like you to hold off patrolling new pages for a while and do as much anti vandalism as you can and be sure that you only report genuine cases of vandalism to AIV. HAppy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note to self: This account is a sock puppet of Undertrialryryr and has been blocked indefinitely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"Institute for the Future" page erroneously deleted

Hello,

On June 15, 2015, you deleted the entry for the "Institute for the Future", a public institution that has existed in Palo Alto, Ca for almost fifty years. This deletion was made in error, though I understand there were some concerns with how the article was written that led to its deletion. The reason given by wikipedia is lack of notability requirement - please see the following public news articles as evidence of that requirement being clearly met. Please advise on how this page can be reinstated and improved.

https://boingboing.net/2015/09/10/new-neuroscience-based-platfor.html https://hbr.org/2015/04/heres-how-managers-can-be-replaced-by-software http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/14/high-score http://fortune.com/2015/03/05/w-l-gore-culture/

UPDATE: Based on Melanie's comments below, here are more articles about the Institute for the Future. The articles above were quickly chosen from the last few months' worth of mentions, the point being that the Institute for the Future is often and consistently referenced in mainstream press, and perhaps wikipedia's users would like to know about it. Here is a recent press release from the U.S. Department of Labor announcing a partnership with the Institute: https://blog.dol.gov/2015/07/30/imagining-a-bright-future-of-work/ Here is an op-ed from the Institute's Executive Director in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/07/22/is-silicon-valley-saving-the-world-or-just-making-money/innovation-is-happening-faster-than-we-can-adapt Here is another article about the Institute's work in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rawnshah/2015/06/18/the-future-of-work-and-our-social-compact/ Here is an article about the Institute's work in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/04/16/2025-tech-predictions-thrilling-and-scary-data-ubiquity-security-concerns/25740105/

You get the point, I hope. How many of these are required? Please amend. This feels more like editorial judgment without context than an objective administrative process, to be entirely honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decals42 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you,

Dylan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decals42 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Forgive me for jumping in here, user:Decals42, but the WP:notability requirement is for significant coverage ABOUT the subject from independent reliable sources. These references do not meet that standard and IMO they are not enough to support reinstating the article. The boingboing thing merely mentions that a person being quoted is a fellow at the Institute. Same with the New Yorker article. The Harvard Business Review article is not about the Institute; it may have been sponsored by the Institute (I can't read the full tagline). The Fortune article has a passing mention; I had to read the article twice to find it. Passing mentions like this do not establish notability. BTW may I suggest that it is rude to tell someone they deleted something "in error", when they were simply enforcing Wikipedia's policies. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Melanie, I believe it is also rude to delete the pages of 50 year old institutions that work with thousands of people every year. Wikipedia, for all extents and purposes, is a public resource, and yet the rules and requirements are increasingly inscrutable and inaccessible to all but the small contingent of people who follow them. No effort was made to help the Institute for the Future meet a requirement they do not understand. Does every single human in the world need to be a wikipedia expert in order for wikipedia to accurately reflect the world they live in? I would guess that very few institutions meet the notability requirement as described. What periodicals devote time specifically to talking about the existence of institutions? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decals42 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The above message was also posted on my talk page and I replied there. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Kudpung - Decals finally came up with some decent sources, so I have userfied the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

Kudpung, thank you for your very kind word}s to me (and on Maggie's page) as I leave the WMF. They're appreciated very much. I'll still be around, and have promised to make Maggie's life difficult, and I have full confidence you'll join me in that. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You can rely on it, Philippe! Take care. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Action Hero

I hope you didn't read my posting on that user's page as a criticism of you. I answered what seemed like a reasonable question in good faith, although I've no idea why he emailed me in the first page. He seems to be commendably keen, but lacks the experience, as you and subsequent posters highlight. And that's an awful signature, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not in the slightest, Jim, in fact I hope you didn't think my comment was aimed at you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

NPP restriction discussions, new policies being drafted, etc?

Hi Kudpung,

I left a reply on my talk page to your message, then I came back to check yours just in case and noticed that your NPP concerns seem a bit more complicated than I first thought. I am somewhat put back by the thought that there is significant danger around the process, perhaps because I was doing it wrong in the past or because maybe I never patrolled the patrollers to see what folks did wrong. Can you provide me links to the discussions and rationale behind restricting the ability to help with NPP so that I can understand what went wrong in the last 5 years that I seemed to have missed? Thanks in advance Figure81 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Figure81. I have been one of the key figures in the monitoring, development, and improvement of NPP for over 6 years. It would take several hours to dig out all the diffs. Perhaps you could curl up in bed with your laptop or iPad, a nice cup of tea, and start reading through all the archives at WT:NPP :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung, archives at WT:NPP will work to get me started thanks Figure81 (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

He is back again

This was salted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaushals_Kross

And now he came here with an IP requesting undeletion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&diff=681287203&oldid=681281931 --Action Hero Shoot! 10:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

RMS52

Hi Kudpung, thanks for your assistance with this sock master. With ReflinkerMS (talk · contribs), you posted a block notice saying that talk page access was revoked, but I don't see any indication you actually changed my block to reflect that. I know I could do it for you, but it'd probably be better coming from you. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up Bbb23. I thought the blocking script did it automatically. If I ever get something wrong again feel free to go ahead and fix it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI...

I'm not an admin. Thank goodness. How's the NPP RfC coming? Anything I can do to help? VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For some reason I thoght you were, but if you're not, maybe now is the time to do something about it. See WP:RFAADVICE and this. We are still waiting for stats to back up our arguments for some changes to NPP but it looks as if the person who was going to do it has gone AWOL. Can you help with such stuff? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a huge compliment! Honestly though, I have seen car accidents that I would rather experience first-hand than go through RfA. I am also not sure what I would use the tools for - I don't really want to be responsible for blocking or unblocking accounts, don't feel particularly qualified for WP:PERM, and generally (not that I pay that much attention) the existing admin corps seem to keep up with the various deletion processes just fine.

I can create charts and analyze data at a somewhat pedestrian level (I am an engineer not a statistician), but it sounds like what you need is more of a database person, correct? VQuakr (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it means creating a table from stuff in the SQL. I don't know how it's done, probably with regex, but it might need an account to access it. I just don't know. If I did I'd do it myself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ex Parte

I saw Ex Parte replied to your last post on his or her talk page and more clearly confirmed that they are agreeing to abstain from NPP activities. That take some urgency off of their competence issues IMHO - they can be a slow learner as long as they are not "learning" by being a bull in the NPP china shop. It may be constructive to acknowledge their admission, since sticks are more effective when paired with carrots. If he resumes NPP actions and I am the one to post the noticeboard discussion, I will ping the other editors who have been active on Parte's talk page including you. VQuakr (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

My Story

Hi, RMS52 here.

I need to get the word out to you, I'm not a sock, never was and never will be. You might not believe this but.... yeah.

I have a brother 1 year older than me. And he likes vandalizing online stuff like the Wikipedia. I'm guessing that he must have created some accounts that were vandalism only, so when Bbb23 ran a checkuser on my IP, we must`ve had the same, so he blocked me.

ReflinkerMS should not be blocked, I operate the account for maintenance work, it was also confirmed by an admin at WP:PERM here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed&diff=680406064&oldid=680405784 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.23.1 (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Instructions for making unblock appeals are on the talk page of your registered account. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Page Deletion

The Hanging Stars . This page needs a chance. Re WP:BAND there is nothing non-notable about the band, who have been performing for some time, who have a recording contract, who have music that has been played on the BBC, who have a fan base, and a viable FaceBook page. You ask editors to "assume (your) good faith"; but it is hard to do so here to do so here. There is nothing easier (or lazier) than instant deletion; but it is much better to let things be until there is a consensus to delete. Before your proposals, the page was patrolled by another editor who presumably thought it was OK. Let others look at the site and develop it as more information comes along. In short, don't delete; what would be the point the point?! Arrivisto (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:AfD is precisely what you are suggesting. The community will decide. But you may wish to inform yourself of WP:BAND in the meantime. Note that as far as FaceBook is concerned, as a criterion of notability, for us at Wikipedia it might as well not exist. We delete references to it. Note also that the bulk of my work at NPP is patrolling the patrollers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(talkpage stalking) I am that other editor. I certainly found enough to mark the article as patrolled in the first place and I've since !voted weak keep at the AfD now running. But the argument in favour of keeping is not strong and the outcome far from certain. You can comment at the AfD too, but you'd be advised to find more convincing arguments than those you made here. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the article is still rather basic, but great oaks from little acorns grow. I propose to let others add their bits and have their say. I'm moving on! Arrivisto (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but we do expect articles to be reasonably complete and to meet our standards of notability before they are published. That's whay we have the WP:DRAFT namespace, the WP:Article wizard, and WP:Articles for creation, in addition to which, we have numerous help and advice pages and noticeboards and forums to ask for more assistance. We're actually quite supportive.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not a mine of information on this band. I started the article in the hope that others who do know about the band can add to it. If the article stays as thin as it is now, then it will perhaps become a candidate for deletion. You say "We're actually quite supportive." OK, many thanks for your support! Arrivisto (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

NPP

Hi Kudpung, this weekend I'm officially letting myself get back into Wikipedia after real-life issues over the past few months or so. I'm not much of a content contributor and I'm bored with mindlessly Huggleing, so I think I'm going to try to do some new page patrolling. I feel like I know enough about policy that I can more or less jump into it, it would just be great if, starting tomorrow or Sunday, you could just take a look at some of patrolling and make sure I'm not screwing up too badly. Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 19:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kharkiv07. Just be sure to have a very good read of WP:NPP first, and you should be OK. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Referring to a template

Hi. Referring to this diff. A leading colon works nicely to disable the magic of a category link, as in Category:All disambiguation pages, this doesn't work with transclusions: {{:PBB|geneid=151176}} transcludes PBB!

You could do something like <code><nowiki>{{PBB|geneid=151176}}</nowiki></code>, or use {{tlx}} thus: {{tlx|PBB|2=geneid=151176}} which produces {{PBB|geneid=151176}}. --Mirokado (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

• Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access

• News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Wikipedia?

• In the media: Is there life on Mars?

• Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road?

• Traffic report: Another week

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wanted to get details about a previously deleted article

Hello, I was about to create an article but noticed that you have deleted a page with the same name Forest Trail Academy. I am interested to create the same article with different content but before proceeding, I wanted to discuss the issues with that content. Can you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbmeso (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The issues are linked to in the notice that is displayed when you click on the article title. The linked pages will provide full descriptions of the reasons for deletion. Please sign your posts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Kilkenny Club

I made a article about the Kilkenny Club last night, which you deleted. How did this article fall under vandalism? How can I edit the page so that it is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.179.195 (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Truly fascinating how many people claim to have created this article and you don't actually appear to be any of them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Kilkenny Club

I made an article about Kilkeny Club last night, which you deleted. How does this fall under vandalism? How can I edit the page to make sure it is not?p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.56.135 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Truly fascinating how many people claim to have created this article and you don't actually appear to be any of them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. I saw the cached version of the stub article:

Kilkenny Club is a small unincorporated community in Bryan County, Georgia. It is located on the southeast end of Kilkenny Road, and the western shore of Kilkenny Creek. It is the location of Kilkenny, a plantation home listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.

It doesn't appear to be a hoax. See [5], [6], [7], and [8], for example. It may be such a small community that it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, but I'm not sure. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

RFA

After Anna Frodesiak and Anne Delong, you haven't nominated anyone. I may have overlooked. You must find a RFA candidate who will be potentially successful. NeilN was opposed by @Cassianto: and GregJackP as lack of content creation, but he became one of the best Administrators. They may not want a content creator who is uncivil, engages in sockpuppetry and POV pusher as a good administrator. Materialscientist is a content creator and also active administrator who fights vandalism, while there are other sysops who never do any administrative tasks. Due to inactivity one after one administrator is desysopped by Worm That turned. We need more administrators. Wikipedia is voluntary, we can't force anyone to use their tool, but we must find candidates as NeilN, MusicAnimal,5 albert square, GB fan, Mike V, Callanec, Kuru, Huon.....--112.79.38.89 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of this thread? Cassianto^Talk 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Trolling? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The big fib

Hi Kudpung, I posted some info at User talk:Quiddity (WMF) concerning "The community is requesting restoration of article creation to unregistered editors". A huge fib of course, emanating from what appears to a well established hosiery company. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Success Academy Charter Schools page -- revisions request

Hello

On Aug. 24, you answered my request for revisions to the stub regarding Success Academy Charter Schools with a very encouraging recommendation that I post suggested drafts on the talk page, which you would review. I did so on Sept. 1, but received no responses. I posted another request for responses on Sept. 18 but have still received no feedback. If there is something I need to do differently, can you please let me know? I am relatively new to Wikipedia and may not understand some of the nuances, but I feel very strongly that the entry needs to be balanced, and I would like to work with you and the other editors to make this happen.

Thank you.

Bev at Success Academy (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bev. (and FYI: DGG). I apologise for missing your comments on the article talk page. I have left a very general comment at Talk:Success Academy Charter Schools which you as an award-winning journalist will have no difficulty in interpreting, especially if you are sure to follow all the links, following which, I therefore trust your judgement as to what should be included bearing in mind that content added to such articles is always subject to review by any editors and especially the WP:WPSCH coords. Happy editing! . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Grant idea?

Hey Kudpung. I wanted to ask you if you were still entertaining that idea of yours you mentioned to me at Wikimania London back in 2013-- as I recall, you were interested in conducting a series of talks or workshops around Thailand schools about contributing to Wikipedia. I still think this could be a really great idea, and I wanted to encourage you to start drafting an idea for this in IdeaLab over on meta, or if you think you're more or less ready to submit a request, your grant would likely be a good fit as an Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) or a Project and Event grant (PEG). IEG submissions are due by the 29 Sept., but PEG grants can be submitted on a rolling basis. Let me know if I can help you get started or answer any questions you have. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT (WMF). Thank you very much for remembering our talks. This is a project I cannot do entirely alone so as I would need the physical support (or even leadership) of Taweetham who is the driving force behind a Bangkok based user group (some 500 miles from me) I have contacted him for his input. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Success Academy Charter Schools

Hi. Just a quick question: was your TB note directing me to your notice on this article's talk page (which I had already read) pro forma, as you were sending it to all recent editors, or did you specifically think I shouldn't have removed the "Not trying is simply not part of our culture" quote as promo? Thanks, BMK (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi BMK. I sent a tb to everyone who had made more than very minor edits (typos, cats, etc), irrespective of whether they were adding unwanted content or cleaning up. My effort is to get as many eyes on the article as possible a) to avoid it being deleted again, and b) to keep the spammers away. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Postmortem

Still sort of dusting off from my RfA, but wanted to pop by with one thought or perhaps question: How much serious discussion has been given to additional "unbundling" of some of the admin toolkit? It would be nice if a few more wikignoming tools could be granted on request the way rollbacker or account creator can be, or perhaps a bundled, but limited toolset with a lower-key review. Two of the specific things that have been an ongoing annoyance for me as a content editor have been 1) the inability to move pages where there are other pages in the way, thus needing to go to RM and beg for a move... and 2) The inability to protect or semi-protect pages. While in both cases 90% of the RMs and RPPs I make are granted, it would be nice to just be able to do them instead of requesting, waiting, possibly discussing an essentially non-controversial move, and so on. The other area where I have a lot of interest, DYK, would be another possible unbundled toolkit; the ability to prep queues... perhaps these tool would also be the same ones for TFA, ITN, and so on - I don't know how that works internally. But again, the concept of a group of "gnoming" tools would ease admin pressure. Way too much of of everyone's energy at my RfA went to the question of how I'd handle the block button. But frankly, the other ones I've been granted over time each kept me happy with my new "toy" for a few months each... so just wondering it this is an idea that's gone over like a lead balloon in the past, or if it would be suitable for future dicussion. Montanabw^(talk) 06:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): If I may butt in with my unsolicited thoughts: Non-controversial moves when there is, say, a redirect in the way, do not require RM or even an uncontroversial technical RM; simply post a WP:G6 tag on the offending redirect, with rationale and the desired page move, and the deleting admin will normally do the move themselves after they speedily delete the redirect. As far as PP, non-admins should never be given that capability; that's just common sense in my view, as the person who wants the PP is invariably involved in some way, even if just as an annoyed observer. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, does that mean that an administrator should never protect a page they run across which has been subjected to abusive and "annoying" editing , and should instead ask another administrator to protect the article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not specifically saying or even implying that, as when they are given the tools admins have been de facto judged by the community capable of making such decisions (assuming they are not directly involved) without asking another admin. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, if the tools were unbundled and trusted editors who are not administrators were judged by the community capable of making such decisions, then exactly the same thing would apply to those trusted editors, wouldn't it, Softlavender? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Only if a very public community-wide RfWhatever were held for every single tool handed out that way every single time. I don't personally see that happening anytime soon, and at present the non-admin tools that are handed out are handed out only by admins, which is not a community decision. Montanabw was asking above for the unbundled tool(s) to be handed out without community-wide review ("granted on request the way rollbacker or account creator can be"). Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict):There has in fact been quite a lot of serious discussion about unbundling some of the tools. In fact WereSpielChequers is a strong proponent of one of them and if it comes to another RfC I will support his idea to give some extremely limited use of the block button to highly competent and well establshed counter-vandalism patrollers. There may be a case for a 'Page mover' right but as someone who works a lot in that kind of area and deleting Redirects to make way for moves etc., I don't think the need for such a right is a matter of urgency - it seems as if the admins are able to cope with the demand. I know nothing about DYK and even after all these years I don't even know how it work. I suppose it exist as a carrot to get some articles expanded but what I see of it it's mostly a MMORPG for mew and/or younger users and it never counts for me as a compelling criterion for RfA. I didn't even know that admins have to use their tools on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that if your mention of WSC was meant to be a ping, it won't work because you have to type four tildes and the correctly typed ping at the same time? Just checking. Softlavender (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, see if this works: Softlavender. Mind you, you've got to look at that little 'Notofication' thing on the top of any page you might be looking at. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's how DYK works: it's a four-step process. 1) The article is reviewed and approved (big backlog there, even with qpq, but no tools needed, anyone can review) 2) Another person reviews the review and moves it into the "prep" area. Anyone can screw that up the first half-dozen times you try do that too (This is where I've started to be more active.) 3) A third person - who MUST be an admin - re-re-reviews the re-reviewer and moves the prep set into the queue to go onto the main page. (This is where I wish I had the tools; these queues are often empty with an update mere hours away) then 4) Some sort of magie pixie dust moves the queued set of articles to the main page. Obvious, not just anyone should get to mess with the main page, but some sort of advanced toolset would be good to set up the queues. and then there's 5) Someone STILL spots a copyvio or close paraphrase... sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Another thing of note: That first DYK is a thrill you never forget and it sends you on your way to want to do GA and FA-quality articles. At least it did for me. It's fantastic recognition, and far from being a landing pad for new users, there are many experienced ones with hundreds of DYK credits (such as Rosiestep. You probably should rethink your views on that matter, perhaps. Oh, and for the record I'll re-ping WereSpielChequers Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK still sounds to me like a lot of hassle for what it's worth and I'm not really interested in it at all at my age. I never got a thrill out of anything I edited in all these years - I just believe in what I'm doing, and the behaviour of the FA reviewers has put me off listing anything for FA that I spent 600 hours on. The nearest I got to a thrill was at the unexpected applause at my impromptu classic concert at the Barbican last year. Or perhaps when Jimbo Wales smiled at me across a crowded room in Hong Kong (well, he smiled in my direction...) To be absolutely blunt, I suppose I do experience a twinge of satisfaction every time a really lousy admin gets desysoped. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Treasonous words, all of them .... Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Following up on @Montanabw's ping, let me just say that having spent thousand of hours (with >1,200 DYK credits, I can safely say those articles have taken a lot of my time) on articles which went through the DYK process, it's a really cool area of Wikipedia. I did not nominate my first DYK article; someone did it on my behalf when I was quite the newbie. I was in awe that someone took the time to read what I wrote about an obscure Amazon tribe and then nominated it to the mainpage of Wikipedia, and it subsequently sent me down a road of article creation that numbers around 3,900 new articles at last count... but who's counting. As Montana described, those articles don't get on the mainpage all by themselves. They go through a review and a re-review and a re-re-review, and mistakes can still occur. But they get people to write start class articles, and, of course, all articles have to start somewhere. I'm the biggest fan of GA and FA article writers, but not everyone has the time, skill, or inclination to go through those review processes. In the meantime, we need more hands on deck with admin tools to help out at DYK. I don't know whether unbundling that one DYK tool from the admin tool set and allowing a trusted user to use it is the answer or not -- if there's been a proposal to do so for that specific tool, I haven't reviewed it -- but suffice it to say that DYK is a big deal, and those who have worked in its bowels have to have a high understanding of both policy and process in order to move articles forward, with time constraints to boot, while remaining neutral and calm in their interactions with editors who often don't understand why their article is "being picked on". Best, --Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• There have been several "successful" reforms of adminship in the form of various unbundlings, I think template editing was the most recent, Rollbacker probably the most obvious and successful in terms of the number of people who have that right. The downside of each unbundling is that it can make it more difficult for people to get adminship, and because admins have the whole toolset they can get involved in the areas where we need admins, including those where we need experienced admins and it would be the kiss of death for any candidate to mention in an RFA. The unbundling of rollback ended the era of "good vandalfighter" being sufficient qualification to pass RFA (Early 2008 saw a step change drop in new admins). The problem, which one day we will have to address, is that only admins can block spammers, vandals and so forth, and this site we have nearly a thousand blocks a day. Over 99% of the blocks that we do are utterly uncontroversial, but almost all of them need to be done urgently; over 90% of deletions would be OK if we had a daily backlog that was cleared in the US evening, but our blocking of vandals requires 24/7 coverage of admins. So at some point I will make another attempt to get block/unblock unbundled with a programmatic limitation that only admins (or maybe only crats) can block/unblock accounts with a meaningful number of edits. That unbundling meets my criteria for unbundling, there is a clear need, and there are people who could use that right but who don't currently meet the community requirements at RFA. I'm not sure at present what other unbundlings meet that criteria, I'm more interested, as a way to take pressure off RFA, to think of what rights we could upbundle to the crats. Blocking and unblocking of experienced editors would be one possibility, if only because it would take much of the toxicity out of certain debates and relationships if admins could no longer block any account that had made a thousand edits. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: many bureaucrats are steadfastly opposed to any additional tasks to their now very comfortable mandate; in fact many of them hardy ever log in, let alone edit anything. Understandable really, because the vast majority of them have been around for well over 10 years and it's quite natural that some users will have lost interest in working on Wikipedia over such a long time. What we need is a new influx of keen, enthusiastic nerw 'crats, but how do we encoiurage people to step forward? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, people watching what I went through are not going to be inspired. it’s a Catch-22: if you’ve been around long enough to grow the spine of steel you need for the toughest admin decisions, you’ve also got a lot of people with grudges against you because you’ve already exhibited those traits. If you don’t have a spine of steel, you probably haven’t made too many enemies either, because you’re conflict-avoidant and a “go along to get along” kind of person. But when those folks get asked to step up and make a tough call, they crumble.

Maybe there is a need to acknowledge that the skillset you need to pass RfA is disconnected from the skillset you need to be an admin and perhaps the two need to be reviewed. It occurred to me that another possible reform (that will probably never pass in a trillion zillion years) would be for only existing admins to be able to vote on nominees. Or, perhaps a better possibility is that everyone could !vote, but do it like the ArbCom elections, you vote, you vote once, and you can’t comment with your vote; all the action is at the talk pages. And no one knows the vote trends or outcome til the end. Perhaps that would help. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I don't think most editors want new admins to have a "spine of steel" and making the "toughest admin decisions". Some admins like NeilN can step into adminship like they've been doing it for years but most people have a learning curve, you start with the most basic tasks that need to get done and through experience, you build confidence (and people have more confidence in your judgment). IMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyone has a learning curve Liz, even WereSpielChequers, one of our best admins, needed two attempts at RfA. I don't believe anyone is a shoe-in for adminship. I think Montanabw may be missing some salient characteristics of the RfA process and the baggage that candidates bring (or don't bring) with them. The Montana RfA was perfectly in order; the community spoke its mind and for the most part the consensus was very clear on one specific quality which demonstrates again that it's not just a question of edit count, FA/GA/DYK, or a performance (or lack of it) in maintenance areas. There is also a huge difference in making an objective oppose vote vote and blatant PA or trolling. Just because people oppose is no reason to assume that a candidate was given a hard time or that the outcome was unjust, and we can all generally shake the trolling away like water off a duck's back - and if we can't, then we haven't got the nerves of steel for front-line admin work - but we might just get away with the gnoming type of stuff in non contentious areas. (for every soldier in the battlefield, thee are 9 in uniform behind desks and in front of computers thousands of kilometres away in the safety of their operations rooms).

If someone wants an example of a really nasty RfA they only have to look at mine which was full of innuendo, blatant lies, stuff deliberately taken out of context, and baseless PA. Some of it by other admins that would have been blocked if they had not been admins and they had repeated such behaviour outside of the sanctity of RfA where it has been allowed for too long to be a venue where users can behave in disgusting manner with impunity. Fortunately, I passed and such behaviour is now rare but that RfA demonstrated that admins themselves were those who behaved most badly. The name Montanabw is very familiar to many editors, hence the high turnout for which there should be no surprise, and the type of votes were in proportion to what they almost certainly would have been if the turnout and tally had been 64/43/7 instead of 128/86/13; so at total of 86 opposes does not mean that he community is 'out ta getcha'. There are also the undeniable facts that Montana was given clear indications offline that now (or even never) might not be a good idea to run at RfA. Some of us need reminding of this and this (if we were around in those days) which were however fairly politely conducted. Unfortunately, in spite of the advice which was written in 2011 and takes only 17 minutes to read, candidates still think they have a chance and then criticise the system when it didn't work out for them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the RfA candidate who has a clean past like MelanieN, Ritchie333, or NeilN and an appropriate attitude towards collaboration even in the most irritating situations, and can demonstrate adequate knowledge of maintenance tasks, will not attract unreasonable votes. There will always be the handful of regular trolls and members of the anti-admin brigade who always turn up to vote 'oppose' whoever the candidate is, but there is nothing much we can do about them; the won't influence the total outcome and most of them end up looking very silly in an otherwise deserted Oppose section. Summa sumarum: RfA does what it says on the tin.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that Ritchie contacted you offline and I have a vague recollection that someone else suggested to me that I contact you also. (All a blur now). However, I think you misunderstood me; at no time did I think the community was “out to get me”; on the contrary, there were really only about three people whose behavior concerned me and I’m still mulling over their actions. I would be interested in a link to your RfA, Kudpung, if it was as nasty as you say, perhaps I can learn from your example. It is tougher for an experienced user to run for RfA, as confrontation and conflict is part of the process and baggage is inevitable. Montanabw^(talk) 06:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are actually suggesting that I am simply another Eric Corbett in style or approach, with no hope of ever achieving adminship, I hope to prove you wrong. Perhaps a “clean” past free of blocks is not enough, nor, apparently is the powerful evidence of collaboration in several specific FACs - most of my efforts would not have succeeded without help. But given that the most contentious issues I became involved with usually involved proven socks or now-blocked users, I’d be interested in looking at the question of how one stands up for oneself (or others) in a more effective manner. Montanabw^(talk) 06:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, I am absolutely not suggesting you are another Eric Corbett, either in style or in approach; indeed, I am very careful to generalise and not ostensibly even point my finger in any one editor's direction. There must be a psychological association to make you think so. Corbett is a special and unique member of this project but it cannot be ignored that his entire presence on Wikipedia arouses very mixed and very strong feelings from both admins, non admins, and even the Founder.

Ritchie333 may have mentioned you offline, but please understand that users contact me frequently about adminship, RfA, and candidacy issues and suggestions - not only offline but also at meetups and conferences. I've been in the front line of RfA reform and the search for suitable candidates for several years but I'm beginning to lose interest now because it's a never-ending battle to potty train the voters and to get the anti-admin brigade to find another hobby. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You linked to Corbett's RfAs, that was all...the connection I made was those links with the comment about "now (or even never)" earlier in the paragraph. I am sorry if I misread your intent. You have my sympathy about the "anti-admin brigade." It's a problem that admins are in decline, no argument there. I guess if you have any constructive thoughts beyond your excellent advice page that would turn your oppose to a neutral or support vote the next time I run, i'd be curious what you have to suggest beyond your general advice above. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 07:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make a specialisation of SPI, particularly as an admin, the person to discuss it with and get the best advice from is Dennis. SPI is very much a closed shop (perhaps not quite so much these days with admins such as Bbb23 over there), but it's creators (or early pioneers of the process as we know it today) are actually very protective and possessive of it. As a seasoned admin, when I enquired about becoming an SPI clerk a couple of years ago, I was told in a very snotty way to run along and get some editing experience. The result was that after having worked hard to follow through from my discoveries of socks while being concerned for the quality of New Page Patrolling, and successfully starting many SPI cases, in spite of my acute olfactory sense for socks, I don't care tuppence for the place nowadays except for the most blatant and obvious cases - in which case I mostly don't even bother with SPI and just block the miscreants myself. Dennis had a similar experience with the SPI crowd and it almost drove him to retirement.

So standing up for yourself or for others is a character trait you either have or you don't and if one day you get the bit (you probably will) you might prefer to gnome around with it and stay away from the drama venues; which would also mean having to distance yourself from pubs where you used to be a regular. It happens in the army when you get promoted - you are no longer welcome to share a beer in the junior ranks' bar in the barrack block with your old mates. It happens (or happened) in the old-fashioned British-style boarding school I went to when you become a prefect. It happens everywhere in life - when you get promoted some people will come and piss on your shoes. It's even worse in academia - you're supposed to be among some of the most intellectually elite and among them are some of the nastiest, if most prolific, of researchers (we've got a few examples oth them here on Wikipedia).

On Wikipedia fighting fire with fire gets people very long block logs, starting fires gets them burned. Asbestos has been banned, here we either need a new suit of armour or powerful enough breath to blow the flames out, or to stay away from the heat completely. My RfA is here, and I'm still here. It was the last year with a bumper crop, after that the number of nominations nosedived. Hardly surprising after seeing the way I had been treated.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Indeed. You know, the way “neighborhoods” (my new word for "closed shop") have developed on wiki (SPI, DYK, etc.) do give more thought for either unbundling more of the tools OR figuring out a way to get more admins on board. One way or the other, there are not enough (equine pun coming… wait for it…) horses to pull all the wagons where the toolkit is needed and the situation will reach critical mass eventually. Maybe once upon a time, a person could just call a “repairman” to fix their house, now we need to call a plumber, an electrician, a mason, a painter… you see the analogy. As for flames, asbestos was pretty toxic anyway, so I'm all for a new and improved suit! I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this. Which beer do you prefer? Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Unbundling has its pros and cons. As WereSpielChequers said, we have successfully unbundled some and I support his idea to give very restricted use of the block tool to really mature and cluefull vandalism patrollers. However, those rights, as any admin knows who has worked regularly at WP:PERM, are a captive market for milliners, and you're konstantly getting children under your feet who have mistaken Wikipedia for a MMORPG. Most of the proponents for unbundling (you'll understand this if you mosey with your mouse down the sigs of those who voted on the various RfCs and see the popups) are users who think it's either a stepping-stone to adminship, or who will never be admins anyway but still want something to brag about in their primary school playground.

You'll get more admins on board if you can convince the trolls and anti-admin brigade to lay off. After all, they are the ones, generally prolific content providers, who constantly complain about admins and they should appreciate our efforts to find better admins and to make it easier to desysop the ones who can't behave; however, most of them have cried wolf too often or can't resit the temptation to maintain their block logs in the Wiki Book of Records. Unbundle too many things though, and you'll end up with a medusa of moderators, wanton wheel warring, too many chiefs and not enough indians. I think we do OK with the current scope of the admin mandate and that the vast majority of our admins who do anything at all do a pretty good job even though those of us who are more active have to suffer the kind of unprovoked PA and trolling I just removed from this thread and the behaviour of those editors who just can't resist taking a swipe at admins at any opportunity. Most bizarrely, some of them are admins themselves or even former long-term arbs.

If you become an admin, Montana, you'll need to accept that you will have to leave the slum pubs in the cobbled streets of Wikipedia and find yourself a more up-market wine bar where there are fewer misogynists and where people can generally have a conversation without using words you'd go to prison for printing before 2 November 1960. My favourite beers are Diebels Alt, Jever, and Köpi, but if you're buying, I'd prefer a glass of red Lirac from the Cave St Valentin where I deliver my Grenache, or if we're eating spit roast wild boar from the Vaucluse, a really wicked Gigondas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be difficult to create a "vandal block" user-right - so that editors can block new editors (under say, 100 edits)? Worm^TT(talk) 08:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Best I could do on short notice! Thanks for your input. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dave. Technically not at all. Philosophically, even the anti-admin brigade would probably vote it down, although we could be all in for a big surprise and find that lots of FA writers and reviewers suddenly want to fight vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's worth checking how many blocks are at that level - might be something to put forward. Will have a think. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Check it out with WSC, Dave, I think he's probably already done that part of the homework.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Of the last 3.3 million blocks, my back of the envelope calculation is that somewhere between 99% and 99.9% could be uncontentiously devolved to vandalfighters. We have dished out 3.3 million blocks since late 2004, and the number of correct blocks involving established users is somewhere between 1 and 10 a day (though if editwarring blocks are much more common than I guestimated then we could be in the 90 - 99% region). Even if we also kept range blocks as admin only I believe that millions of admin only actions in the last eleven years could have been done uncontentiously by volunteers other than admins. Since the standards at RFA have long ago risen to the point where vandalfighters who have never contributed any content cannot get the mop because certain established editors don't want those who only fight vandalism to be able to block them, it makes absolute sense to me that we create a userright for vandalfighters that lets them do what they are good at without being able to do the blocks of established users that worry others. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

All those missing Thai villages and this is how time is spent... I know you don't edit Thai settlements anyway Kudpung but I wish so much time didn't go into these sorts of things!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

School outcome

Hello กุดผึ้ง,

Thank your for your recent comment to point out to me about the purpose of the school outcome document. Perhaps, it wasn't clear to me in that document about how to decide whether a given primary/elementary and middle schools is notable. Let's say if a New York Times article happens to discuss about an elementary school at length but the school does not necessary have anything "unique", (to my understanding of the consensus,) we won't necessary have that school as a standalone article. We might need to give some examples in that document for the case of primary/elementary and middle schools like "having unique historical or architectural significance is a good indication of notability" to give clarification to editors who are not familiar with the school AfD discussions in the past to learn and to understand. What is your thought on adding that clarification? Not sure if this has already been proposed and discussed in the past. Z22 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

z22,, The NYT is a major, leading newspaper and provided its coverage is not an advertorial or an interview with someone closely connected with the school, chances are the source is reliable. We need to ask ourselves however, why is the NYT writing about it, but no other nationally important newspaper? The next questions are: How many reliable sources are giving in-depth coverage? Are they all talking about the same incident? are they just picking up on each others' stories? The bottom line is that sometimes reliable sources are still not always enough to assert notability, while a plethora of sources may not add up to notability either; that's where a knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the ability to interpret them comes into play and these things come with experience.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not every single topic covered by a reliable source or two, ought to have a freestanding article on Wikipedia. I believe that primary schools of indisputable historic or architectural significance should have articles. For example, U.S. primary schools listed on the National Register of Historic Places should have articles, as well as schools in other countries listed in similar registries. The vast majority of other primary schools should be covered in articles about their school district, diocese, governing organization or locale. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)