User talk:Kudpung/Archive Oct 2016

Re NPP

Yeah I know about attack pages-but which one was patrolled wrong? Wgolf (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wgolf, I can't remember but it doesn't matter now because it's deleted and you can't see it anyway. Attack pages when tagged will light a red alert on admins' control panels. Please also return to Aubrey Wade and tag as appropriate. I will continue random checking your patrols and point out any others that might need a revisit. Please understand that depth and accuracy rather than speed are essential when patrolling. Although we have a very serious backlog, not patrolling at all is better than letting bad articles through, or wrongly tagging for deletion.You may wish to read WP:NPP again because patrolling is a complex process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

Hello -

I am new to Wikipedia and I am creating a page for someone else. I didn't mean to publish the page yet, as I am not finished with it. Is there a way to unpublished it without it getting deleted? I am trying to get the article up to the Wikipedia standards. Any and all help would be much appreciated!

Ivy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivysaur423 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The page has been moved to Draft:MaryLynn Johnson where you can work om it for a limited period without it being deleted. For more information, please take a moment and read all the links on the welcome message I have written on your talk page. Please remember to sign your messages - see the big blue banner down there → --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements.
Message added 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim Carter 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Essential further reading

You added two items on User talk:DGG to the Essential Further Reading at The Future of NPP and AFC. However, they only go to the DGG talk page, not to the sections. I haven't yet checked whether they are misspelled or whether they have been archived. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert, Please try and fix it. I'm getting fed up with being the only person who is actively doing anything. I've spent 36 hours setting up the entire project. now I would like some other concerned users to take some initiative. It should be fairly clear from DGG's talk page which sections are being referred to. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I did find headings in his archives that correspond to the links. Basically, given how methodical his archive is, everything in Archive 0.22 is applicable, and there is a link for the whole archive 0.22, but I did fix the broken links. At this point, AFC is more backlogged than I have ever seen it backlogged before. I know that NPP is also backlogged. By the way, Do not bite the newcomers is, in the abstract, or when it was written, an excellent guideline, but I think that it is related to what is wrong with NPP and AFC. Too many reviewers are petrified of being thought to be bitey with regard to bad-faith new editors, but I am writing a separate essay on that. I am still getting up to speed on the NPP and WMF mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert.

Imagine a world in which all new page reviewers and recent changes patrolers went on strike.

Please remain seated with your computers switched on until Wikipedia comes to a complete stop.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: I've just looked at DGG's talk page. It looks as if he's already archived the major discussions to his selective archives. However, several days ago I had already put a copy of those two long recent DGG discussions on the project at Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/The DGG discussion. Perhaps you or someone could make the link more prominent.mIt's a key discussion and should be read by everyone.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

PPS: At NPP biting newcomers is the least of our worries. It happens of course, but it is actually so rare compared with all the other issues that the collateral damage is well within tolerable parameters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A few reviewers are petrified of the collateral damage, and are part of the problem. The main problem is X and Y and Z. Discussion is in progress as to what X and Y and Z are. Right now the main short-term problem is backlog, and the wrong answers include lowering the standards and less-qualified reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am moving them and all major related discussions to my subject archive User talk:DGG/Archive 0.22, which could be linked as

User DGG AfC and NPP archive. I shall be moving most of the other major discussions also, see in particular User DGG COI and paid editors archive User DGG Notability archive User DGG AfC and NPP archive My user talk had reached a ridiculous length, and Ive been meaning to do this for some time.

After School Learning Tree

Hi, Kudping I was not finished with the article and was too busy so I left it hanging. I will edit it pretty soon.

Thanks, GAMTWMV!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAMTWMV (talk • contribs) 03:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see the BIG BLUE banner at the bottom of this page - I usually do not respond to unsigned messages or to requests where users have not read the instructions for creating articles. It is unlikely that After School Learning Tree will ever be accepted by Wikipedia. It is purely promotional about a non notable for-profit organisation. Wikipedia is not a business listing directory. Sorry. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delete your account

Hi Kudpung. I'd like to ask about your rationale in the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delete your account. It looked to me as though there was not quite a consensus for deletion, and your close didn't explain how you decided. Some of the delete !votes had thin reasoning (that the article was "silly" or "memecruft"). Would you mind explaining a little bit further how you determined that the community decided to delete? Thanks! agtx 15:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The AfD was closed according to WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS (Administrator instructions). When a consensus appears fairly clear to the closer, there is no obligation for a closing rationale. As far as I can see, if one disregards the votes from inexperienced users, the 'delete' votes appear to be made by established users who are well versed in policies and guidelines - the nominator is a member of Arbcom (but that does not mean that Drmies cannot be wrong, and his status does not influence my evaluation of consensus). If you would like a new reading of the consensus you are welcome to apply at WP:DELREV - I have absolutely no objection. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think my inflated status is relevant, haha, but yeah, that looks like a pretty decent close to me. It's all so trivial--this should somehow prove it's of ongoing importance, but there are all just mentions. A meme should be considered notable if reliable sources discuss it--which means talk about it in some depth, at some length. That's not happening here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I understand you don't have to put a rationale on the page, which is why I asked for clarification here. Based on your reasoning (that experienced users supported a deletion), I don't think there's a need for review. I might have voted differently, but that doesn't mean you got the consensus wrong. agtx 22:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

May find this useful?

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

Hi Kudpung, I've made http://tools.wmflabs.org/nppdash/count/ to help track numbers with regards to NPP. The number at the top is the live count of the queue, and the graph below is periodically updated to show trend -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty good Sam. Does it auto-update? It's on the lines of the manual graph I made in Apple Numbers. Perhaps not state 1500 articles left to patrol, because the quantity increases every day due to the constant arrival of new articles. Probabyl best to just call it the backlog. Perhaps not invite people to do some patrolling for the moment until we get the current RfC closed. If you know how to do some data mining (Quarry) we have some more stats that are required. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I've made those changes - the graph currently doesn't auto-update though I'm working on that. The number does. I've been using Quarry for a while - what other stats would be useful? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:41, 3 October 2016 (UT

Samtar I'll let you know tomorrow, it's 3am here and I've actually just come of a very long Skype with someone in NY about the whole NPP debacle. Need some shut-eye. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Page Curation tags

phab:T147224 is now resolved. All the tags that are in Twinkle should now be in Page Curation. I might have missed something or there might be a slight misconfiguration... but everything checked out with my testing. Let me know if you have any problems! I have also taken note of Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements and will see if there's other ones I can easily fix. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you enormously MusikAnimal. I'll check them all out. Looks like we at last have a 'friend' in the WMF! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's looking good. Thanks. These aren't the obly functions that need to be added to the Curation tool, but it's certainly progress.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a little tip: If you go to Preferences > Notifications, check "Failed mention" so that you'll get notified when you unsuccessfully pinged someone. This was a failed mention, for instance. For the notification to be sent, I believe you have to (1) start a new line of text in which you mention the user, and (2) sign the comment in the same edit that you mentioned the user. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Aha! Thank's for the heads up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	There really is no way I can think of to adequately thank you for the incredible amount of work you have done driving NPP forward so have this barnstar with my inadequate thanks. JbhTalk 03:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Jbhunley, for the kind words. It kinda makes my work worth doing after all :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Good morning!

I know you're very busy with other things at the moment (bureaucracy bid looks good to go. Congrats or I'm sorry...not 100% which is more appropriate. You're a glutton for punishment.), but could you take a look at the last two posts on my talk page and advise? Both involve Sherman Oaks Center for Enriched Studies. My guess is the teacher is a sock and I'm being trolled, but I don't want to buy us any bad PR. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. You're being trolled. I've warned both users and protected the page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

SprX small RNA review

Extremely sorry for placing the mis-informative tags!!! The tags do not stand a chance!!! Thanks for your correction!!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

New quotes on your user page

The new quotes—I like them.

For your consideration:

...the three most important things about real estate are location, location, location.

Substitute promotional articles for real estate and you have the explanation for the explosion of COI articles in Wkipedia.

References

— Neonorange (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted page - inquiry

Hello,

I was reviewing the outcome of the following deletion discussion: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick_McGuinn , and though I understand the concerns brought up in the discussion, I feel as if the arguments were misled and there is some missing details in the scope of this topic that should be considered.

details

The biggest argument that called for deletion is related to notability and the general notability guidelines. In addition to the Variety article referenced in the discussion, the filmmaker's films have been reviewed in the NYT (See: Genzlinger, Neil. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 23 Oct 2009: C.8.; Genzlinger, Neil. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 22 Nov 2006: E.12.) as well as included in short film collections. The most recent being a collection of award-winning short films which was reviewed in the Library Journal: Johnston, Lisa N. "History Lessons / Queer as F**k: Bizarre Short Films". Library Journal127.13 (Aug 2002): 165. In addition to these sources, his films are collected within UCLA's Film Archive as part of the Outfest LGBT Legacy Project. https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/collections/outfest-ucla-legacy-project-lgbt-moving-image-preservation . And as being a participant of Outfest, his work is also captured within the OneArchives indexed by the Online Archive of California. His films have also been featured at the Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival of Toronto You can find him referenced in the following books: Out in the Dark: Interviews with Gay Horror Filmmakers, Actors, and Authors By Sean Abley The Motion Picture Guide: 1999 Annual (The Films of 1998) by Edmond Grant CINE ARCO-ÍRIS: 100 anos de cinema LGBT nas telas brasileiras by Stevan Lekitsch - 2011 As a final comment for consideration, I think this page needs to be looked through a different lens. The editors who commented do not have a background in film history or LGBT history (according to their profiles). There was also 3 calls for further discussion, and only one additional comment was made after those three calls. For researchers in the field, he is a figure that is referenced and should be kept a part of the common knowledge that Wikipedia represents.

Given these additional details and arguments, I do hope that this page can be reconsidered -- and I hope I am following Wikipedia procedures correctly to get this process going (It's kind of gauntlet of resources to figure out what the exact steps are to proceed with this -- so, apologies if I should have gone a different route).

Thank you! 2605:E000:6195:FF00:40DB:35C8:9FF9:3CA0 (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read all this in detail. If you are saying that the closer should read the article concerned and then actively empathize with LGBT issues, unfortunately that's not the case. We consider the arguments that are put before us in the deletion discussion and do our best to evaluate a rough consensus. I've read my closure again and I can see no r4ason in this particular case to change it. If you want more eyes on the affair, may I suggest you make a case for your opinion at WP:DELREV, but I would encourage you to keep you post as short as possible if you want the editors there to do anything about it, and perhaps consider registering an account. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying so quickly! I will consider those options. 2605:E000:6195:FF00:40DB:35C8:9FF9:3CA0 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Per DRV steps: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_October_8 Pclibuser (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC Notification Concern

Hello Kudpung,

It appears that you have left a talk page message to everyone who added their talk page to this list advertising the RFC to set the criteria for the new NPP permission. I am concerned that you did not notify everyone who participated in the original RFC which found consensus to create the permission. The way you notified could be perceived as biased. Could you rectify the situation by posting the same notice to everyone who participated in the original discussion? I doubt it will affect the outcome, which seems pretty clear, and I do note that the RFC is publicized on CENT.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Tazerdadog, Your comment here seems to be from someone who may have an axe to grind, as evidenced by your apparent two 'Oppose' votes in the same section (Do correct me if I'm wrong).

The list you refer to has absolutely nothing to do with the RfC whtsoever. That said, ?I'll nevertheless look into it and see if there is anyone I missed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That was definitely a mistake - My fault, and I have struck the !vote that I intended to be in a different section. That list is a list of people who broadly support the reforms you are attempting, and have signed up to receive notifications about it. Notifying only them does not provide an accurate representation of the community. You need to notify everyone or noone who has participated in previous debates, not simply those who agree with you. I, like you feel strongly about this, so a third opinion from somebody with no axe might be helpful. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Your assumptions are absolutely incorrect. The list you refer to is exclusively designed to send newsletters to a work group and was created yesterday by MusikAnimal. If you persist I will make a strong case for you not assuming good faith and feeling so strongly about things that you vote twice. Most, if not all of the participants were informed. I suggest you do some work instead of harrasing those who work hard for this project and demonstrating your antipathy for them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC).

Tazerdadog,}for my part, your concerns have been addressed. There may have been 12 or so of the 100 or so who participated whom I had not notified. I'll just point out to you again that the list you referred to is a specially formatted list for the mass messaging system - which ironically is not allowed to be used for legal canvassing - all legal canvassing has to be done by hand, one-bu-one. That requires a lot of time and dedidation to Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, the additional notifications address my concern. I hold no antipathy for you or your project even if I disagree with some of it's goals. Thank you for your response. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

WMF waiting for our NPP short list

Hi, It's now been three weeks since we created the NPP Work Group and we are hoping for a dynamic push forward for the urgent updates and required improvements to the quality control of new pages.

We now have the attention of the WMF and their development team has made page patrolling a top priority. They are already working hard to address some of the major issues.

The success of this depends on our team being able to keep the developers supplied with the feedback they need - if we relax on this they will move on.

If you have not already done so, please complete your list of 10 preferences here as soon as possible from the list at To do - the WMF is waiting for our shortlist. Please note that No.8 (NOINDEX) has already been addressed.

Thanks for all your help. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Asking for a review of an article

That, now I have been told to refrain from proposing any article for deletion etc., I would request you to kindly take a look at at whether this article warrants enough notability and enough verifiable citations to be in WIKIPEDIA. The details as ascertained by me are as follows----

• Reference 1 discusses the exclusion of Ganguly, but nowhere mentions anything about the group.(Is relevant to the background section).
• Reference 2 is offline.The short title does not suggest any link with the group.
• Reference 3 contains material about the group but in all probability fails WP:RS.
• Reference 4 is stale and non-rcoverable.
• Reference 5 contains material about the group but in all probability fails WP:RS esp. when it asks citizen journalists to write it's own news!
• Reference 6 is gathered from a Facebook source. Fails WP:RS.
• Reference 7 discusses the exclusion of Ganguly, but nowhere mentions anything about the group.
• Reference 8 discusses the hindrance caused by other teams to the intention of late-inclusion exclusion of Ganguly by a particular IPL squad, but nowhere mentions anything about the group.It is cited in the signature campaign section, to the effect that it was their signature campaign that lead to the meeting but the report nowhere mentions it!
• Reference 9 contains strong material about the group but in all probability fails WP:RS as could be perceived from the amateur reporting. Also like Ref. 5 it has a feature allowing common public to submit reports of incidents which is probably the case here!
• Reference 10 is seemingly the most reliable reference and passes WP:RS.But, again the article does not even hints about the slightest mention of the group!
• Reference 11 is also similarly reliable and passes WP:RS.And is probably the lone article across the web discussing about the group.
• Reference 12 is stale.
• Reference 13 comes not only from the same website in Ref-9 but also from the same reporter in the same tone, containing strong material about the group but fails WP:RS.

Basically, the entire article is about a fan-club,evidenced in a single verifiable source. Further the article uses sources which are dubious regarding the activities of the group but uses perfectly reliable sources for justification of general incidents.

Thus, I would like you to kindly consider about the article in view of the above points and anything else available at your end, that you may find suitable.

Sorry for disturbing.If you/(any admin) is not the right person to notify about this type of issue, can you please instruct me on how to proceed with these cases?Thanks!

(I also posted the same massage on Cabayi's talk page.)

(Please ping me while informing about your observations/comments/decision in this regard.) Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll allow you to make an AfD posting the exact deletion ratioale information you have posted here.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Cheifs (rock band) whose page which was just being created was deleted immediately!

I would like to understand the rational for deleting a page that was just being created for my band. While every other band from that era is allowed a page, you somehow have decided that we are not.

This page was started by friend who sent over the information to me so I could start working on it and fill in the details. I signed up a Wiki account to do so, and by the time I tried to acce the page it was deleted by you. Why??

I CAN'T EVEN INCLUDE WHICH PAGE BECAUSE IT IS NOW BLACKLISTED! WTF????????????

Please explain.

--Bob

Bob Glassley Bassist of The Cheifs

glassley@usa.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacheif (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see the welcome banner at the top of this page and then the blue banner at the bottom of it. That said, there is no record of you having created a page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I Thought this WAS a signature:

--Bob

Bob Glassley Bassist of The Cheifs

I have found that this is somehow more personal Dacheif (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC) As I tried to post earlier, but was unable to, this is the page you deleted, which was started minutes prior by Scott Hedeen. Hopefully this will post this time

wiki.riteme.site%2Fwiki%2FThe_Cheifs&h=JAQE9MeRD&s=1

Dacheif (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC) --Bob

Bob Glassley Bassist of The Cheifs

What we don't appreciate here on Wikipedia is being yelled at - you have no right to demand that your band has a page here. I suggest you look at Hedeen's talk page at User talk:ScottHedeen. Al the information you need is there. Please also tell your friend that it helps to read the instructions before creating an article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am a fan of the band. I think there needs to be a WIKI page as an historical record of this band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottHedeen (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for miscommunication. I have never created a WIKI page before and would like to do so. Let me see what i can do? Can i resubmit with help from more expericenced wiki users?

Scott Hedeen — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottHedeen (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no salvageable content in the first version. You can start at the WP:Article Wizard and make what we call a Draft. However, in order to avoid wasting your time, you are strongly advised to read the instructions in all the links provided on your talk page and during the creation process because as I see it, an article about your band has little chance of being accepted. And again, please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) or the signature button. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Worcester page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPP and WP:A7M

Hi,

I saw the link to my BLPPROD essay on WP:NPP (thanks!), but I also noticed that there is a link so SoWhy's essay WP:A7M there too. Some sort of advocacy is implied (it is listed under a heading titled "Essential further reading"), so I thought I'd point something out: there seems to be a misunderstanding regarding A7 and WP:NOTINHERITED (and of course WP:INHERITORG). I've encountered a lot of editors who have cited one of those when talking about A7 or significance; they seem to be under the impression that they apply to A7, and that therefore means certain claims are not significant. This includes many of the claims listed in WP:A7M. When this became a big problem for me, I asked SoWhy about it, and he said WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to A7 (because WP:NOTINHERITED is about notability, not significance), and that anyone who cites it when talking about A7 doesn't understand the criterion. I have also written an A7 essay, where I explain how it does not apply to A7, but my point/question is this: if it's recommended that New Page Patrollers read SoWhy's essay, is it worth raising awareness of this misunderstanding regarding it? Although a lot of the hoo-ha I've had came from my removal of A7 tags (as opposed to merely deciding not to tag an article) because of claims listed at WP:A7M, at the end of the day an article either meets the criterion or it does not. It makes no difference whether the information is used in deciding whether to place a tag or whether to remove one. (For the record, I fully agree with WP:A7M). Adam9007 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007, A7 is the most misused tag by patrollers. They often use it as a catchall. I created that reading list arbitrarily from what guidelines and essays I found at the time and I did it scour the entire Wikipedia. I have even written some essays myself on related topics but did not list them.

SoWhy's essay (WP:A7M) is absolutey spot on , it accurately details and explains this genuinely hard-to-understand policy.

More importantly, it therefore superbly illustrates why it is so necessary to limit the task of New Page Reviewing to people who have the capacity to understand these issues. These issues of clarity appear to be of concern to Innisfree987, perhaps you could get your heads together and do something about it. Unfortunately she does not appear to lean very enthusiastically to my work on Wikipedia or the time I spend on it. And that's a shame. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

She? Innisfree987 (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

He/she/they - it? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

'They' seems more prudent than conjecture (not to say, assumption). Innisfree987 (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

SoWhy is a male according to their settings. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Getting back on topic, yes A7 is often used as a catch-all. I have actually been given quite hard times when objecting to it being used as such, not just because of WP:NOTINHERITED, but sometimes simply because the other editor felt the article is unlikely to survive AfD. Heck, I was taken to ANI not long ago, where editors criticised me for removing A7 tags from unsourced articles; never mind that A7 has nothing to do with lack of sources. In addition, in my experience, a lot of editors (wrongly) consider WP:NOTINHERITED to apply to A7, and that by extension means they consider WP:A7M to be wrong, because a lot of the claims listed there seem to rely on inheritance. I hope my essay helps to clear up this confusion, and I do believe something (formal) needs to be done, or it will seriously disrupt NPP (and Wikipedia in general), which is of course the last thing we need. There was an RfC about it a while back, but it doesn't appear to have had that much of an effect, for I still regularly see articles with claims listed at WP:A7M tagged for A7. WP:CSS was even nominated for userfication (is that a word?) for contradicting WP:NOTINHERITED (which it of course doesn't). Something needs to be done, but what? Adam9007 (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007, I wouldn't worry about it too much for the moment. Let's get that new user group up and running for patrollers and then we can address it later. Yes, userfication is a very frequently used Wiki term. It means moving a an article that has potential but is not ready for publication, to a user subpage. If we can get the compliment of Curation Tool features running, there will be a one that semi automates moving such pages to the Draft namespace, so eventually the term will drop out of fashion.

ANI or WP:CESSPIT - hmm, it's largely been taken over by wannabe admins and the peanut gallery and that's why admins don't operate there so much these days. If I'm still around, it's actually going to be my next project when I've finished getting NPP up to scratch. A few of us are already discussing off Wiki what can be done - I bet MusikAnimal has some ideas on that too, he has a lot of very good ideas, he did a marvelous job of getting PERM cleaned up from interference from non-admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't done that much NPPing lately due to being busy in other areas. I don't know if I've done enough to be grandfathered into the right, so I don't want to get back into it only to be told I don't meet the requirements. That would be rather embarrassing... Adam9007 (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007, you might not be grandfathered because we have to start a new list and weed out the 880 proven trolls (revealed in my 2011 survey for the WMF) who don't patrol pages, but at the same time encouraging thoese of the right calibre to do more patrolling. Qualifying users can apply for the right at PERM and get it almost in an instant - they can also approach an admin direct. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that you wouldn't get it, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have that much experience moving pages though. I get the impression that's a requirement? Adam9007 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007, any autoconfirmed user can move a page. See WP:MOVE. It's one of the quick tasks reviewers are expected to do, but if tey can't they shouldn't patrol a page that needs moving. Many (about 30%) new pages from new users have title errors. It's very easy when you know how. Nevertheless, it's not clear to new users (and wasn't to me either) that it's the only way to correct a misspelled page name. WP:Page mover is an extended right which has some additional features. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

NPP idea

I think it's uncontroversial to say that giving demonstrably competent content creators the autopatrolled flag is the strongest way of keeping down the backlog at NPP while still maintaining quality control. Would it be wise to see if we can add a button to the patrol interface to allow editors to swiftly nominate the creators of articles they're patrolling for that flag? I've been going through the new pages feed over the past couple of minutes and have found multiple prolific content creators who clearly meet the criteria, but many never wind up asking for the flag or getting nominated because they're off doing the hard work of creating the encyclopedia and patrollers don't think to nominate other editors.

I've not even fully convinced myself this would be a good idea, but your input would be valued. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That's already on this week's WMF list of things to do as discussed with Katherine Mahler by the senior software engineer, and on our list for months - again, my initiative ;). You are obviously not aware of the huge effort we have been putting into these issues of NPP, that's why your apparent lack particular support comes across as a disappointment to me and other admins - but of course you are entitled to your opinion, and provided it is objectve it receives my utmost respect. See also the discussion with Adam9007 above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I do support the user right actually, although I don't believe I've bothered officially stating my support in the RfC because it hasn't been needed. I'm largely supportive of everything you've been working for, although the Twinkle misunderstanding was a large misstep in the first round. I signaled my support by signing on as a participant over at Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC/Work group a couple weeks ago, although my time has been quite limited lately and I've been unable to dedicate much time to reading through the full list of suggestions from that project. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. It's important however, that you vote. The way RfCs work is that votes not only reinforce the consensus, but they also influence how new participants vote. Also urgent, because the WMF is waiting for it (see WP:Signpost article), is your priority listy list and ACTRIAL vote on this page. It would be great if you could find a moment to do this over the weekend (or better still, now ). Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Done and done, although my views are admittedly less formed than others, so my priorities should probably be taken with at least a small grain of salt. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Vallathol Lokame Tharavadu (2014) A documentary.

Sir You deleted this entry which was shown on the 'Vallathol Narayana Menon' Wiki page a few months ago. When I posted this now I did not know about this deletion. This documentary was lovingly made by a school teacher, Rifa Shalees Chennara, from Vallathol's native village with no funding from any one! May I kindly request to you, sir, that you do not cancel this entry and any revenue generated by the DVD of this goes straight to the Vallathol memorial in Kerala. Kind regards krishna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crkrishnan (talk • contribs) 12:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Im very sorry but the article does not meet our criteria for inclusion.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Could I kindly know the reason for Dr. Renuka David page being deleted

Could I kindly know the reason for Dr. Renuka David page being deleted, I have started providing the necessary info and am unsure as to what I maybe doing incorrect. thank you MD 02:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennizm (talk • contribs)

Please see the message on your talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

please keep the page "Matheus Soares."

Hello, I respect his work as a Wikipedian, but the page "Matheus Soares" must remain a living person and important musician he deserves respect, according to wikipedia policies, as a very important Brazilian DJ and producer, is a young prodigy which is the revelation of electronic music, he made several presentation at music festivals, plus great Brazilian references hope you keep the page, and consider the fact that the page is new and under construction for more text and great references Christian Steiberg (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The community will decide on the future of this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much!! Christian Steiberg (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Tim McLelland

Yeah, you are probably right. Published a lot but couldn't find a review...it's just that I like aircraft and its a relief to come across a new article that isn't about a Korean idol group or Azerbaijani football player.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Kubpung

Kubpung. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of the Employsure page

Hi Kudpung,

My name is Roland and i'm getting in touch with you in regards to a recent deletion of the Employsure page. We would like to request undeleting this page please as we don't really think it's fair for such a large organisation not to have a Wikipedia page. The URL of the deleted page is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Employsure

I'd be happy to provide you with any information you may need to restore the page. However, please see some useful information about Employsure below:

• Employsure is the largest provider of Workplace Regulations servicing over 10,500 Australian businesses
• Employsure has over 350 employees in Australia only
• Employsure is part of the Peninsula Group which was founded in 1983 and has the following wikipedia page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Peninsula_Business_Services

(By The way, the Peninsula page is currently linking to the deleted wikipedia page )

• Employsure is a respectful company with a 4.7 / 5 rating score on Feefo Reference: http://ww2.feefo.com/en-au/reviews/employsure/?logon=www.employsure.com.au&since=all
• Employsure is the 21st Best Place to Work in 2016 ( BRW http://employsurenews.com.au/news/employsure-21st-in-the-best-places-to-work-study/ )
• Employsure also operates in New Zealand and has its own NZ website

We urge you to restore the wikipedia page as soon as possible please,

59.100.251.134 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Roland

References

Congratulations!

Hey - you quietly passed the ten year mark a week or two ago! Your account was "Created on October 18, 2006 at 05:08". Doesn't this call for some kind of celebration? --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Golly, MelanieN that was the week I started building my house in Kudpung village, no wonder there are already cracks in the walls! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You started building a house AND editing Wikipedia in the same week? Amazing. Would you say there are cracks in the walls of Wikipedia? --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-submission question

Kudpung, the article I submitted, Agent Review, was deleted following being tagged for "Speedy deletion." So I then re-submitted the article from my sandbox.... Then a message appeared: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." I have already addressed these issues as best I know how, in the re-submission. And I have added a client disclosure statement to my Dicksamson page. Should I just wait for the review (about 3 weeks) or is there something specific I need to fix in the meantime? Many thanks for your help! Dick Dicksamson (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I can't see how it would ever be accepted. In its current cast, if it's moved to mainspace it will get deleted again. I think you'll have to wait until the people at AfC get round to reviewing it again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

New Pages

Hi,

You told me to stop using the New Pages Feed, because you said I was a beginner, but I've been editing a lot and read up on everything for the anti vandalism academy, new pages patrolling, and such. Can I possibly retry doing this? I have been here for 7 months, with over 800 edits most of which are patrols. I know to tag less and when to tag what, and to add categories instead of just tagging it for no categories, etc. Adotchar (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Several members of The community wish you to stop patrolling new pages - you error rate is far too high. Thank you for your comprehension. If you continue, it may become the subject of an official enquiry.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Would I be permitted to continue if I fix the error rate? I read all the guidelines and I believe I can fix the error rate and quality of my tagging. Adotchar (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it will take a lot longer to fix the error rate than you believe. Bear in mind that it would only take one, or perhaps two errors for your editing privileges to be restricted. or if you were to patrol pages faster than one every three minutes.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sakkini - Contest Deletion

Hello,

I have made the necessary updates to the Sakkini page as you had requested. Just wanted to check in and see if its is sufficient or if I need to add some more references o articles.

Thanks

Candypaint514 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung&action=edit

I've read up on everything, was helped with the adopt-a-user program (and still doing it), and I believe that now I can return to NPP. May I? Adotchar (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't, because whoever you are, you still haven't even learned to sign your messages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I did, I used the four ~, but it didn't work right for some reason. You can see the date, but my name and talk page isn't there. I'll fix it again. You can check my archive and every other talk page edit I've done, and the signatures are there. What happened was I clicked the link on your notice on your talk page that says "Hi, welcome to my talk page", with "click here to leave a new message.", and when I did that, adding the four ~ didn't do anything when I saved the page. It also didn't create a new section the first time, just added the text at the bottom of the page. You can check the diffs. Please reconsider, and don't blame me for a problem in the script. Thanks, Adotchar (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

May I try again at NPP? Really sorry for any troubles I caused you. Adotchar (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I learned how to use Snuggle! This is now so much easier to find and deal with vandalism. I'm fine without NPP for now. Sorry for the trouble. Adotchar (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Adotchar, I think that is a very good idea. NPP is very complicated and you woudn't meet the criteria under the new rule that went into effect yesterday. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I just checked and I do meet the criteria I believe, but it's okay. Thanks! Adotchar (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

test

sig: --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewers

I've built out the localization (MediaWiki:Group-patroller, MediaWiki:Group-patroller-member, MediaWiki:Grouppage-patroller - that one assumes the "home page" for NPR will be Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers) - can be adjusted in a few places if not) and the WP:PERM requests pages for the new group. We are working on getting the bot set up for the perm pages. If any of this looks wrong let me know and I'll work on fixing. Are you going to personally take care of the adding access to grandfathered users without a request being filed part? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, xaosflux, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers is to be the default page for New Page Reviewers and I am making some minor tweaks to it to reflect the final terms of the RfC.. The original (and actual master page) is now exclusively the tutorial and its talk should ony be used by developers of the tutorial.

I expect the burden will fall on me to manually add the rights to the grandfathered patrollers but it depends on he size of that list. Who is going to create that list?

• A newsletter has been prepared for all former and current patrollers and a mass mailing list needs to be complied. I have a list of the different sources that will compile this list but someone with a knowledge of Quarry will need to write the search regex (or whatever) and extract the data. from SQL.
• The content of the page at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers can also be used as the basis for he policy page.
• The content of the page at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers can also be used as the basis for he system at WP:PERM

Also pinging MusikAnimal.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

For the query you want - do you have the specifications to match spelled out "in English"? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the the same report that will be for the grandfathering list? (On Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/RfC_for_patroller_qualifications you suggested there was 20 or less accounts that would be involved). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, xaosflux, the lists are not the same. For grandfathering - the most urgent one - we need a list of all users who have made at least 200 uncontested or unreverted New Page patrols in the period from 01 January 2016 to 06 October 2016. Whether they did it using the Curation toolbar or any other method. Note that there appear to be several kinds of patrols, this is not to be confused with recent changes patrol/flagged revisions. We certainy do not want to include them.

I'll send the search criteria for the other lists later when I have located them on my computer.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a complicated query that I think might be easier with a script or a series of separate queries. It also doesn't help the columns in the pagetriage_log table are not well documented. I've started on a script but have only gotten but so far. Will let you know if I figure it out! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Eastham High School

You deal with school articles, right? This one is a cluttered shrine, filled with far too many images, some of them with dubious status. Can you (and/or anyone talk-page watching) clean this up? Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I deal with them in so far as I'm the coordinator of the very large schools project but I don't do cleanups. However, if you repost your message at WT:WPSCH you may well find that someone will take it on if you don't want to do kt yourself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've removed the worst 10 of the 27 images. I also removed the non-articled alumni. It needs textual help though -- if the spirit moves anyone here, please give it a go. I posted it at the project page too. Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A thought re reviewed CSD-tagged pages & NOINDEX

Hi Kudpung, hope you're well. I just had a thought regarding the recently-successful bugfix of NOINDEX-ing unreviewed pages. Would there be any merit (and, if so, would it be technically possible - MusikAnimal might be able to provide input here?) - for that to also remain for reviewed pages with a CSD tag applied? I've noticed with a couple of pages recently that Google indexes these - and it would help take some of the urgency out of what is sometimes a rather large CSD backlog for administrators to deal with, for similar reasons to NPP (though obviously the backlog is nowhere near as large at any one time, Google indexes almost instantaneously, as you're already aware). Would just be interested to know your thoughts? Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is tricky... {{db-meta}} (the parent speedy template) includes __NOINDEX__ meaning any page that transcludes any of the speedy templates will not be indexed – except for the mainspace, where NOINDEX is disabled :( It should be obvious why this is, malicious users could throw in a NOINDEX to any page and it could stay there for many moons before being noticed. With Page Curation, any action you make will mark the page as patrolled, which is necessary because otherwise the page would still appear in the backlog as unreviewed. Fortunately for the more serious criterion such as {{db-g10}}, the page is blanked by the template.

This issue is worth more attention, but I don't think there is a quick and easy solution — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Tricky' is not an issue. There are no such things as problems - there are only solutions. It has to be done and the Foundation will have to invest time and funds to get it done. No tags of any kind should mark an article as 'patrolled'. An article gets 'patrolled' first then when a prtroller clicjks on the 'mark this page as patrolled' button or link.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Does 'unpatrolling' reinstate the NOINDEX or it it a one off? I would think a work around is to simply not automatically mark pages as patrolled rather, as mentioned above, require it to be an explicit act by the reviewer. This would solve several issues which arise from using the curation tool to tag some things while you are still reviewing the article. Jbh^Talk 18:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In all cases, it is indeed clearly intended to require the explicit act of an accredited New Page Reviewer in order to mark a page as patroled. The placing of a tag of any kind should not automatically oatrol a page this goes for Twinkle too. It's going to be obviously too late for a page that has been patrolled and then later tagged for deletion; such pages are already indexed irrevocably by Google, likewise, any pages that have been incorrectly patrolled and another reviewer or admin marks the page as 'unpatrolled' = there's no sense in trying to put a NOINDEX meta tag in the code of such articles.

Let us not forget that this 'no index' feature was introduced many years ago and it had not been noticed that it wasn't working until we began the current Page Curation upgrade the details of which are at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#8. No Index until patrolled. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree Twinkle should not mark a page as patrolled under any circumstances. I wonder if a halfway house could be that when tags are added using the Page Curation tool, a popup/other option appears asking whether you want to mark it as patrolled also? This would solve any issues I can foresee where a patroller forgets to actually actively mark as patrolled after tagging (if thats the only thing that needs doing) but gives them the option of manually doing so later? Mike1901 (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The NPP volunteer development team has been working closely with the WMF devs for a couple ow weeks now. If you have ideas you can add them to the wish list list that they are working through. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The unpatrolled --> re-NOINDEX process is not important if pages are no longer marked patrolled automatically by the curration tool. Right now I sometimes mark pages with obvious tags and then unpatrol if, for instance it is a subject I do not know enough about notability. BLPPRODED articles are another place where this can be an issue now that patrolling = INDEXing. Definitly a high priority task to remove tha auto-patroll on tagging from the curation tool. Jbh^Talk 12:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

JBH, have you actually checked by physically using the Curation tool? last timem I looked, simply adding maintenance tags does not 'patrol' the page. Kaldari was looking into the bug where CSD tags 'Index', then un-index again, leaving a Google cached image of a page with a CSD on it. Rather than conjecture through my talk page, I suggest checking out what is actually happening on the workshop page at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#8. No Index until patrolled, because at the moment I'm unable to be onlkine 24/7 like I usually am. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I just tagged James McCall (veterinarian) with {{stub}} and {{uncatagorized}} to check again and it marked it patrolled automaticly. The curation tool simply autotags on every operation, even previously patrolled articles get logged as logged as "Jbhunley marked 'X' as patrolled" if I simply add tags. It also means that inexperienced reviewers must know enough to 'unpatrol' after they add tags if they want it to be reviewed further. Jbh^Talk 15:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Then I suggest you discuss it with Kaldari direct on the page where we are all working on it. All the devs are following that page. If they can't or won't do it, plan B is to roll out ACTRIAL using a local script. But I do believe Kaldari's team is working to fix the bug. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New Page Review is the most powerful of all Wikipedia's non-admin user tools, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

NPP - Last call for work group comments on stage 1

Hi Kudpung,

The future of NPP and AfC:

To take full advantage of the WMF developer time that has been allocated to this project, we must now quickly submit the short list of our priorities before the end of October, otherwise we may lose the attention of the WMF.

If you have not already done so, please visit the page at Suggested Improvements and select your personal choice of 10 features (excluding the ones the devs are already doing) and list them in your order of priority at Priorities.

Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

New Pages and a suggestion

Hi, Kudpung. Just a quick note to say I appreciate the feedback on Rizal Saputra that you left when you unreviewed it. I had read the NPP guide but thought since the page contained only a single word and therefore made no sense at all it was not too soon to delete it. Apparantly, I was wrong. One thing that might be helpful is to actually quantify in the NPP instructions how long a page patroller should wait to SD a page if it fits the other criteria but is not a blatant case of vandalism, copyvio, or nonsense, i.e. 5 minutes, 10 minutes, etc. I'm glad this new project to create a special page patrollers group is moving forward, and hope I can contribute to it in the future. Thanks again for all your hard work on this. ABF99 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Rowe (actor)

Yeah I put a prod up for Michael Rowe (actor) which it was deleted, but the guy recreated it. Wgolf (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

FOEDD Speedy Deletion

Hi Kudpung i have a new source for foedd. maybe prevent this deletion. [[1]] --Vikipolimer* (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Requests for permissions/New page reviewer (Gryllida)

Hi Kudpung, you marked my request for permission as not done because I didn't review many pages in the last 2 years - sorry, I put a wrong year on the application, I reviewed drafts in 2013-2014 not in 2015.

I would like you to look at what I did, some of it is in Wikipedia/Afc space and some in Draft space; some of my work is in deleted contributions because the drafts were abandoned or not notable, and got deleted. I am willing to continue helping with the backlog in the new environment after the new page reviewer flag has been introduced. Simply resuming my work from the years back requires the flag as I am otherwise unable to review pages with the new system.

I hope we do not use the edit count as a measure of my competency. If I can participate reviewing one page a week for example if I do it right then it is still useful for the process. --Gryllida (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Apology

I'm really sorry for any harm or annoyance I may have caused you. I hope you forgive me for possibly being a bit mean on my talk page, but I have turned my Wikipedia career into a great life of anti-vandalism, and hope to eventually become a pending changes reviewer, or maybe even a rollbacker! _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)