User talk:Kudpung/Archive Nov 2016

Nalanda Buddhist Institute, Bhutan

Hello. Would you kindly take a look at Nalanda Buddhist Institute, Bhutan. This article is tagged as part of Project Schools on the talk page ~ but most of the sections lack any citations and three of the photos used in the article have a © (copyright) character in the caption below them. There are also a couple of © or (c) marks in the article itself. Thank-you. Chris Fynn (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Grandfathered list

Streetfog is on the grandfathered list (#41) however they were asked, by you [1], me and others, to cease reviewing because of the massive number of poor reviews they did. You may remember the account by its original name WebCite. I would suggest they be removed to prevent them inadvertently being granted the new page reviewer right before they have demonstrated a much better understanding of the process than they have exhibited in the past. Jbh^Talk 14:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Good catch JBH. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

They are not on the shortlist. After checking, I find I already filtered them out some days ago. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. This is a good call. The user seems to have good intentions but is massively under-experienced. TimothyJosephWood 15:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I did the manual filtering of MusicAnimal's computer generated list here - and it took a couple of hours :( --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ahh... I see... I did not scroll down far enough. Jbh^Talk 15:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah. Good. I only noticed it when an admin linked to the non-filtered list [2] rather than the mass message page/shortlist in a request. Jbh^Talk 15:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply about CVU

Hi, thank you for looking at my request for rollback, you mentioned the CVU and I have been watching the trainers on the academy page for a while now and all the ones that fit my time zone have no slots for students, I would like to ask how long does it take for other students to finish on there, and if there is any way I can sort of reserve a spot for when a slot opens up? -glove- (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

-glove-, read up on Wikipedia:Reviewing and then apply for that right. It's much easier to get than Rollbacker or New Page Reviewer. Do it for a few months/a few hundred patrolls, then ask me again here abut Rolbacker. BTW, what is your time zone? You may wish to add it to your talk page top like I have above. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thank You for the quick reply! EDIT: (Also my time zone is PST as you asked) -glove- (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

-glove-, PST? Hazarding a guess, I would say that might possibly sound something like Pacific Standard Time. I only know this ( and I still might be wrong) because for over 50 years I have been a regular traveller around the world for my work. As the vast majority of Wikipedia editors appear to live in North America, I don't see your time zone as a disadvantage - try living where I am ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The NPP stuff

Hello. I do a load of translation work online resulting in repetitive strain injury/carpal tunnel syndrome, with the end result that my contribs here have been reduced in recent months and I'm not quite as up to date with Wiki changes as I usually am. For way over 7 years at least I've been working away in the WP:NPP area with no problems. You (quite rightly) pulled me up on one or two things about 8-9 years back and I learnt from that and to the best of my knowledge there has been nothing since then and I feel very confident in doing that. It seems that there are changes in this area and I need to reapply somewhere. I am close on as veteran as it gets. 11 years here, 40k edits here and 1k+ to other language projects, 400+ articles created including 25 dyks and 3 gas. Yet, I'm still a bit unclear where to go. If someone with my experience here is unclear, I dread to think how it is for the ordinary Joe Bloggs. So we very clearly have a communication issue. We badly need clued up people to do NPP. But on my watchlist I have an invitation for applying for Tilostapaja (huh?) but nothing about such a major change which affects me and numerous other users who have been doing considerable groundwork behind the scenes to keep this ship afloat. Bluntly, this is pretty disrespectful. I'm bringing this to your attention as an admin I've always respected. Sure, I can ask for this right, but that isn't the point. We should be told about such major changes as this. (I know that there were advsiories at the time for the debate but I'm not seeing anything since.) Valenciano (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Valenciano, there were two very widely publicised RfC about the introduction of a user right foe NPP. The RfC were well subscribed and the community reached a strong consensus that NPP is not the place for raw newcomers to be working or for others who understand very little about the Workings of Wikipedia ad its policies. These changes were necessary. In the meantime, nothing further has been broadly published because we are still very much in the process of finalising and debugging the issues surrounding the setting up of this new user right. There also a challenging task facing admins who have to manually accord the right to several hundred users who will not need to apply for anything to get the right to continue to review new pages, but but there are no logs to work from, only incomplete data. When that is done, a general call will be made for users to apply for the right. I see nothing disrespectful in waiting until the process is technically complete before officially announcing it, and for the moment there is nothing to prevent you from patrolling new pages.m Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and I'm sorry if I came across as venting. I've probably misunderstood what is happening as I'd seen comments suggesting that this was a done deal. If you have time can you fill me in on what's happening or point me to where I can read up on it? As I said, unfortunately my time here is much more limited than it was before. Valenciano (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Valenciano, a necessary user right has been created for the patrolling of new pages. Users who have made at least 200 uncontroversial patrolls fron 1 January to 6 October are grandfathered into the group. All other former or aspiring patrollers are required to apply for the right at WP:PERM. The technical set up, the grandfathering, and the PERM page are still under construction but some users have jumped the gun. In the meantime new pages can still be patrolled by anyone and a newsletter will be sent to former patrollers when the process is complete. A suite of pages has been created around this new user right, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

Hello! Since you told me to stop using maintenance tags for now, would you please add an unreferenced tag to Beluck. Thanks, _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Adotchar Beluck has already been deleted by another admin. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! _{Adotchar| reply here} 16:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Shadychiri False Accusation Counter

pasted {{Service award progress}} and got what i have on my page so i don't know if that counts as false info? If I am in Order, Please redact the talk. --Shadychiri (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Shadychiri You are not a Veteran editor. For that you would need 20,000 edits. Please remove it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it sir--Shadychiri (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

BLPPROD again

Hi,

It seems the message still isn't getting through: the template was boldly changed again to read "no reliable references". Was I right to revert it? Or am I missing something? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007. I apologise for the delay in replying. I have not been available for Wikipedia for a few days. You missed nothing. You were right to revert. I restored it to an even earlier version and protected it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed the same thing on Template:ProdwarningBLP and reverted that too. Should this template be protected? Adam9007 (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007, I waited a while before replying here because I wanted to see if there were any new undesirable edits to the template. There haven't been any but in view of its past history I've now protected it as from your edit to access only by template editors.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New page review

Hi Kudpung.

I have been granting people on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List4 the New page reviewer right. But now checking on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3 accorded you already declined to do this for some users. This includes Faizhaider, Clubjustin, Catmando999, Adem20 and Adog104. What do you think? Should we remove this bit for those users that you marked tmi? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

AFAICS, the page at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List4 has no content. I have complained long and hard about the mess that's been made about the roll out of this new user right I campaigned hard for for four years. There has been no proper coordination of implementing all the technical features and according the rights, and in spite of my advice how the lists should be extracted from the database, they can't get it right; the PERM page went live before it should have done, categories have been prematurely created and populated with thousands of former patrollers, most of whom are inactive, blocked, banned, or even proven trolls (remember, NPP was something anyone could do without the slightest knowledge and experience whatsoever), and when I pointed out the errors again after spending hours on those lists that they couldn't even get right, I was told by the WMF my work on the project was no longer required. There are some trolls and blocked and banned users in those lists too and that's why I spent hours vetting each user and then gave up when I was told I wasn't wanted, and the WMF appears to be passing the buck back to the volunteers (again) like Oliver Keys(WMF) did back in 2012 on he same project. Now I see that L235 wants all the former patrollers to be given the bit irrespective of their performance. I come to the conclusion that Wikilawyering is more important for some people than the proper control of new articles by properly controlled patrollers.

It would be very unwise to remove those bits again - it would not look good on those users' rights logs, so someone will just have to watch those users' patrolling for months and then find a reason for removing the bit. I don't know who they suppose is going to do that. The whole idea of creating the user right was to avoid this very situation where admins had to monitor nearly every patrol made by the dozens of newbie and immature 'patrollers'. Probably you now ought to be taking your cues from xaosflux who appears to have taken charge of the coordination. But to fully understand my current disenchantment in the way this has been managed, please take a moment to read all the threads at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your long response. Combined with the wikilawyering it makes me want to sigh. Both of us just want the best result for Wikipedia. I am quite willing to change my bit grant if there is a good reason to do so, ignoring any ugliness in the logs for the affected users. I will just leave the situation as is. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List4 has no content because when the bit was assigned we removed the entries. Perhaps it would be better to add a done column. The history is there though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, the RfC explicitly says that any user with a block log since Jan 1 will not be grandfathered. You wrote the criteria yourself. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) From what I have seen one of the main criteria has been ignored - uncontested patrols. If editors have been getting complaints, like those marked tmi or likely some who were not vetted when List4 was granted willy-nilly. There was a process going on at List3 and you guys should undo the List4 grants and go work through the grants properly. There is no point in the new right if the last year of crappy patrollers get the bit because they made over 200 worthless patrols - we made the right to get rid of those careless reviewers. I know it is a pain in the ass but FFS what was the point if prolific bad patrollers can continue being prolific bad patrollers. Jbh^Talk 02:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Graeme Bartlett, it depends how thoroughly you vetted each user on that list. If you look at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3 you'll see that I converted the list to have a done column and if you look at the history you'll notice that it took me several hours to vet the ones I got through before I was rudely driven off the project. If you simply went through the list and clicked 'accord' on all of them (which wouldn't have been your fault), then there will certainly have been some damage done that will continue to create more work for me and DGG for months to come. If that's the case, I do suggest restoring the list, vetting the users' patrols, talk page comments, and block logs, and noting the ones who need to be monitored. See also below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Kevin, I wrote the criteria myself. That does not mean you have to put your own interpretation into it to mean we should not vet those on the grandfather list and weed out the ones that are nevertheless totally unsuitable after being listed in a mechanical database search. Did you read what I wrote above before commenting here? Are you an admin? Do you understand what the work of an admin entails? And how totally ungrateful the rest of the community generally is for the work we do? Then you'll understand why so few users are prepared to come forward for the job and why we therefore have to introduce new user rights such as New Page Reviewer.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course I read what you wrote. My "own interpretation" is that those who meet the community's criteria for grandfathering shall be given the right, with no regard for how an individual admin is feeling about them at that point. I hope that's also your interpretation; to say otherwise would twist "automatically accorded" (which you wrote) to mean "manually screened by an unspecified admin without discussion or specific criteria".

As for "ungrateful for work", right back atcha. And enough with the accusatory pings: You yourself wrote all the criteria for this right, and wrote out comprehensive criteria for revocation in RfC 1 – criteria which should be applicable if any actual issues with patrols come up for any particular user. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Grandfathered new pager reviewer - potential issue

Keeping in mind this ANI thread and the AfC issues, you may want to keep an eye on the patrolling done by that particular new page reviewer. He was grandfathered in, with you granting him the right, but I somewhat doubt that's a good idea. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, BU Rob13 - we all make mistakes. I've reverted the right. Strangely enough, Kevin seems to think that all the users on the list should get the right irrespective of their demeanour. Thanks again for pointing out my oversight which I hope was a rare one. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I can see both sides. The RfC did seem to indicate that grandfathering was a fairly strong default, so I can see Kevin's point. I think this is a pretty clear-cut example of why the RfC close shouldn't be interpreted that way, though. Either way, thanks for taking a look (and a belated congratulations on getting this user right off the ground). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What the hell

I was removed from page patrollers because of an old ANI, i was grandfathered in because i made good patrols and met requirements of grandfathering guidelines on that user right... I don't see the point of removing a right that've not used in error (in bad faith). --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Zppix (FYI: Graeme,Rob, xaosflux, MA), Grandfathered or not, and other threshold criteria notwhithstanding, the final according of any minor user right is subject to admin discretion. Your general performance was taken into consideration. You can apply for the right in the normal way at WP:PERM. If there are no objections it will be granted. But I can tell you now that outbursts like your section header above won't be conducive to giving you a right to a task that requires polite, formal, and above all, mature dialogue, in correct English, with new users. FYI Kevin out of courtesy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Denied, maybe later. Have fun... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I'm bothered that - having given Zppix access to Page Curation - he's still making mistakes. For example [3] - correct criteria (though Twinkle's userspace-specific wording would be better here for G11) but didn't follow up at UAA, so if an administrator was reviewing the CSD alone that may have been missed. I'm not saying it's a major enough slip to remove the right in itself, but you did mention to contact you if anything was noticed related to his use of Page Curation, so thought I'd leave it here for your review. Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Reason behind tmi tagging

Hello, just wanted to know what are the issues you see that made you to tag me with nd-tmi on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3 accorded. Not that I'm very much interested in getting those rights but surely want to know the reasons for getting de-listed. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 04:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Faizhaider. See your talk page for reported issues and missing archives. Also, your editing has been extremely low/sporadic over the past 3 years demonstrating that you have almost certainly not yet read the new tutorials and might not have sufficient need for this tool. Considering that New Page Patrolling puts the reviewers in the forefront of communication with new editors, you may also wish to adjust the content of your user page to make it more appropriate not only for Asia, but for the Western cultures where this English language Wikipedia is mainly read. You are welcome to make an application for New Page Reviewer at WP:PERM at any time, where it will be assessed and granted or declined at admin discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I never asked for it but felt strange that it was accorded and then taken back in matter of few hours.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Faizhaider, I see what happened Graeme Bartlett was supplied with the wrong list of editors to be grandfathered. It wasn't his fault (nor mine either). Don't hesitate to make an application for New Page Reviewer at WP:PERM at any time when you have a significant period of editing without any hiccups on your talk page - and do clean up your user page; remember 'less is more'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A doubt

Sorry for disturbing! Recently,in an article, a particular editor made about 20 successive edits,deleting various pieces of info and then re-adding the same in the next few edits.A diff. revision was checked by me between his last edit and the last edit on the article before he commenced his short burst of editing reveals not a single change. Now, maybe it could be good faith edits but I am inclined to think it is a ploy to gain mainspace edit counts and other associated rights.Do the WIKIPEDIA policies state anything on the issue? Thanks!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

ARUNEEK, Apart from disruptive editing - which would be hard to prove - there is no real policy against edits that don't change anything. Give me the name of the article(s) and I'll take a look. There are things I can do.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Simran Natekar is the article.Thanks for the quick reply!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours and page protected for a bit longer. Let me know if that IP pops up anywhere else. Thanks for your vigilance.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action.Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A nomination for AsD

I happened to pounce upon Ismail Hossain and nominated the article for AsD.I subsequently cancelled the nomination(I have been told to be on a restraint!).(But anyway the article obviously does not seem to pass notability criterion and the news articles give only passing trivial mentions.) Sorry for my mistake!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer permission

Hi Kudpung. I just applied for New page reviewer permission at PERM as the blue "mark this page as patrolled" has now disappeared . Since I am already an autopatrolled, extended confirmed user, file mover, and pending changes reviewer, I had mistakenly thought thought it would be automatically granted to such users, but I guess not. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Voce, unfortunately the people concerned with the actual technical side of rolling the out the new user right jumped the gun and made some parts of the process live before other parts were ready. However, like it often happens with volunteer initiatives, I was told by the WMF a couple of days ago, after all my hard work, to take a back seat with: 'the Wiki will take care of itself'. I therefore did not send the newsletter to all concerned, and the result hasn't exactly been the smooth transition the way I had planned it. Oh well... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. I didn't mind applying for it. It just struck me as odd since it makes a lot of extra work for admins and the extended confirmed user seemed to have been rolled in automatically. Is the WMF intending to fix this? If they don't, I'm afraid the unpatrolled new pages list is gong to get longer and longer. Quite a lot of marking of new pages as patrolled is done manually by editors in the course of looking at new articles related to their WikiProjects even though the don't do the "new page patrol" schtick on a regular basis or define themselves as "new page patrollers". Voceditenore (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We realise this Voce, but we have to draw the line somewhere to stop the rampant uncontroled patrolling by incompetent/totally inexperienced users and ensure that unwanted content is deleted, while at the same time avoiding biting new, good faith users who just don't know any better when it comes to creating new articles - a gross error all these years on the part of the WMF who persist on allowing all sorts of junk in first, to be weeded out later. The problem is that there are just not enough competent patrollers and not enough admin capacity to monitor the process. See the rationales in my recent RfCs here and here which both received a clear consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm here, I might as well throw in my thoughts. I'm not surprised if WMF's implementation procedure was sub-optimal, but this restriction was long overdue. I've been drawn to problematic patrollers mostly through seeing bad speedy deletion requests, and following them up I've found too much biting with instant tagging, many bad deletion requests, many appalling articles marked as patrolled when they should be removed, and very often an apparently insatiable urge to slap on as many tags as possible as quickly as possible. That must be very discouraging for good new users, and isn't much good at stopping and helping the weaker ones - and I reckon it was far more damaging than letting the list of unpatrolled articles build up. Anyway, now that the new user right has been introduced, I intend to help with some NPP as soon as I get a bit of time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Kudpung and Boing! said Zebedee, I'm in full agreement with restricting NPP via a new user right. It's long overdue. I was just suggesting that perhaps the new right could be automatically granted to those editors who are autopatrolled (a bit like the way extended confirmed was granted). The autopatrolled right has a far higher threshold than the NPP right and making it automatic could save a lot of admin time in manually processing applications. More importantly, it would keep highly experienced editors who manually patrol many new articles in their area but do not identify themselves as NPPs in the loop. It was the potential loss of those editors, not the NPP right per se, that I felt might contribute to a lengthening of the unpatrolled new article lists. Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Voce The research we did seemed to show that generally autopatroled users appear to be more concerned with adding content and writing new articles than doing back-office maintenace work - unless of course they are working towards adminship which they regard as meritorious something like getting a BSc or a PHd. There are some obvious exceptions such as people like yourself who have a general interest in many areas, but if a blanket right were to be applied to the 3,520 users with the autopatrolled explicitly granted, it would give us a false impression of how many actual patrollers we have. These are all things to bear in mind because we will be looking for your support on one or two more new policies in the same kind of area that we might be attempting to introduce in the New Year.

Boing, we're going to need your help watching the quality of patrolling by the new rights holders in the first few weeks because due to the confusion a lot of unsuitable former patrollers were grandfathered (not my fault) and may need to be taken out of play.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll pitch in and watch things too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, your point about mass granting NPP to Autopatrolled users makes a lot of sense! I hadn't thought about that aspect. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Closure

Hi, closure is too early, please reopen. Summation is incorrect.

--Asterixf2 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Asterixf2 that is not for you to decide, and if you persist you will be blocked for disruption which is what you narrowly escaped with my closure. (FYI: Boing! said Zebedee). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• I endorse the close and the warning given to Asterixf2. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung:This wasn't very helpful. There was no disruption in this post. It didn't need to be closed yet. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung:Please clarify what are you warning me against. If I persist in what? --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Asterixf2 if you persist in wasting people's time. The closing rationale is correct, the ANI had gone on for long enough - the issue concerning you is a content issue and numerous editors including admin Ritchie333 told you where to take it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand you had the right to make a decision (with which I don't agree). Nonetheless, you could have avoided unnecessary commentary after the first sentence in summation. --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Asterixf2, you had your say, the ANI discussion went on for a long time and not in a very constructive manner, Kudpung closed it with what I think was a perfectly reasonable summary - and now you need to drop it. I can see you're a positive contributor, so please don't spoil that - part of Wikipedia is being able to move on from things that don't go our way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

My purpose in commenting here is that I would like to be able to proceed with the constructive work on the article. In my opinion, Ryn78 is adding nonsense to the article Malleus Maleficarum. His changes are not such that reasonable people can disagree about but a blatant propaganda. Therefore, it is a behavioral issue in my opinion. I wasn't advised on effective remedy to this and I don't think there is any hope in discussion on talk page. Is DRN going to be effective in this case? --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:DRN will instantly close any case involving user conduct. DRN only deals with article content disputes. This is explained at the DRN page and at WP:DRR. Also, repeatedly posting to User talk:GBRV as you have been doing is unlikely to be effective. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

NPP

What is left to do, that you need help with (if you do)? Within reason, I will assist if I can if you want. This is important work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It is extremely important but the problem is that very few people actually appear to realise just how important. Others, in their good intentions, have not organised the the rollout of the new perm too well and although there are some good code writers among them they are stumbling over each other to get it right, while a junior Wikilawyer (who nevertheess correctly closed one of the RfC), keeps butting in over the grammar of the consensus). At least Kaldari now has the NOINDEX finally working again.

There's not much else left to do other than send the mass mail to all the former 1,400 patrollers that if they want to patroll again, they'll have to apply for the right. The only list that exists (because no one else was able to find the right formula to do a simple quarry search) is one which I believe Xaosflux made here but you'll need to unravel the mess they've made of it at the two pages the discussions are spread over: Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions and Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 7#New Page Reviewer (patroller) is coming. You'll need to check with xaosflux whether or not he sent a message and if he did, udesd my draft or another one. My message text is here:

newsletter message text

==New deal for page patrollers== Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}}, In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 has been updated, improved, and the documentation revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group '''New Page Reviewer''' has been created. Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to review new pages. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work. Find out more about this exiting new user right now at [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers|'''''New Page Reviewers''''']] and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. ~~~~

You may wish to touch base with Graeme Bartlett and see how he got on with according the grandfathered rights and what criteria he used. As you can see, my talk page is slowly filling up with questions from users about it.

I now have to continue discussions with the WMF about the other changes that are still required for the Page Curation tool set. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• The only message I sent was the initial grandfathered-granted message, it went to this list Special:PermaLink/746276066, all of which were added to the new group. The message they were sent follows. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Fuhghettaboutit, I am currently doing a triage of the list of around 1,500 former patroller provided by Xaosflux. I'll send the newsletter myself when I have finished because based on what I have found in there while doing this, I will be amending the text of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello {{BASEPAGENAMEE}}. 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 reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, 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.  Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM.

 

 

 

A few questions

Hello there, Kudpung! First of all, I wish to thank you for your diligence regarding NPP and all the work you've done, expecially concluding with the recent "overhaul". I had two questions for you: 1) does the noindex work for autopatrolled pages too, or are these pages exempt? 2) Would I have to request the new user right if I use Huggle? I don't patrol as often as I used to per se, but I am involved in some way or another with newly created pages on a regular basis, be it through reviewing edits, drafts or just gnoming. Thank you for your time. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Autopatrolled pages are indexed. For more information please see the very detailed pages starting at WP:NPR and bear in mind that Huggle of course should never be used for patrollng new pages.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't find any reference to autopatrolled pages, hence my question. Regarding what Huggle should or should not be used for, it does have a new page feed and sometimes you cannot avoid one randomly popping up, especially when filtering all edits. Most of the useful tools aren't there, of course, so I end up loading that article with my browser. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN, All pages officially 'patrolled' are indexed for search engines. 'Autopatrolled' pages are officially patrolled. Being 'autopatrolled' does not automatically accord the New Page Reviewer right which is something quite different. The object of the new New Page Reviewer right is to get reviewers to use the Page Curation and its feed for patrolling pages, and in a way that encourages dialog with new users. For more information please see the very detailed pages starting at WP:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Help!

I screwed something up and do not posses sufficient rights to fix it. I wanted to page move an over disambiguated title to a simpler one without disambiguation, as none was needed. Well, somehow my edit summary ended up in the title. Olentangy Orange High School sufficiently disambiguated in title was the result. Unfortunately, the target page is occupied by a redirect to the former title. Can you possibly sort this mess when you have time? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I believe all that was needed was the redirect deleting and the article moving to its correctname. Please check that I did the right thing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I edited the earlier redirect from my screwed up move to the right target. Looks good...certainly better than it did. slightly embarrassing that it took me two days to notice. John from Idegon (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about John. Time you ran for adminship.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, I think page formatting on WP:PERM is still broken

There are a number of requests accumulating at the bottom of the page (including mine, hence I noticed) that aren't displaying because there's a comment marker in the source. I would remove it, except I believe that will break the signature substitution for the several users pending before me. Not sure if I should be poking around and doing the subst replacement manually on an administrative page such as this, so I thought I would give you a heads-up instead, as I saw you had noted the formatting issues a few submissions ago. Happy to try and fix the rest of the breakage if you agree that's the right thing to do. --DGaw (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)i

Sorry, DGaw, I'm not a programmer and I'm not in any way involved with the code of the PERM pages. Perhaps you should repost your question at WT:PERM where people like MusikAnimal are more technically competent than I am to address these issues. Of course, if you know how, you are most welcome to go ahead and fix the problem.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This should be fixed! I've also added a comment that is shown when you make a request, that hopefully will help prevent users from messing with the template syntax and breaking the page, which is what happened. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Rishiraj Basu

Why my page has been removed from wiki... I am a Independent Musician.. People want to know me Rishirajmusic (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see all the messages on your talk page. An Encyclopedia is not the same kind of thing as FaceBook where you can write as much as you like about yourself online. If you think people want to know you, Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PERM/NPR and Page Curation

Per [4]: I think it's good to encourage use of the Page Curation tool, but even if it were pristince and all issues have been addressed, we shouldn't be answering requests assuming they're going to use it. That user clearly prefers Twinkle or manual reviewing ([5]), which is fine. For the record, I don't know the answer to your question either... I can think of many reasons to use it, but not the "definitive" two main reasons? — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There are quite a few things a lot of people don't understand about all this. Most of those involved with both the RfCs and the roll out of the user right are not aware of how critical the issue actually is that was supposed to be being addressed with the introduction of this user right. For many, the technical challenges appear to be of more importance that the reasons for them. None of those involved with the technical aspects of the roll out appear to have realised that all that has been achieved is to put the whole problem right back to where it was in the pre ACTRIAL days. All that has been demonstrated with the New Page Reviewer campaign is that it is possible to get a consensus once more for something that either won't work, or just isn't going to happen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sanwer, India

SWhat do you mean?Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Xx236 - Bug in the AfD closer script following a redirect to Sanwer, India. Rectified, but not the bug. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Saraswati Gyan Mandir School

Hi! Saw you closed this as a redirect. Can you point me to the discussion/policy? If that's the case, when I come upon these in G13, I'll simply redirect in the future. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

onel5969, there is no policy. All notability requirements are Guidelines, not policies, and are open to common sense interpretation. Schools are subject however to policies such as CSD-A7 that accord them some leeway. G13 however is different and once tagged, should generally be deleted rather than waste too much time trying to salvage them. Otherwise, for many years it has been an accepted procedure to redirect non notable primary and middle schools to their school district page (USA) or to their locality (rest of the world). Such redirects are uncontroversial and can be done without adding to the backlogs at AfC. Redirects are cheap and if necessary (if a school later becomes notable) can also be restored without great discussion, because the content is blanked rather than physically deleted. For more information see WP:OUTCOMES - it's not a guideline but it accurately documents how a few special kinds of pages are treated as exceptions to general rules. It's something page patrollers and AfC reviewers should know so you should also take a moment to read the new tutorial at WP:NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You're only tangentially related to this, but I was certain you'd wish to be informed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, perhaps only tangentially as regards any claims of wheel warring but a lot of good faith has been accused of bad faith and I believe that a discussion at ANI is premature. I understand your concers but in my opinion, the discussion at User talk:Vanjagenije#Uh was not exhausted, and perhaps I might have been invited to comment there before the issue was escalated. I explained to Vanjagenije where I stood with the status of the userboxes, and that they were being shown on around 1,400 userpages of users who were mostly blocked, banned, retired, or whose first edit to Wikipedia was to add the userbox to their user page. Therefore not only are most of those people not New Page Patrollers, they never were, and only New Page Reviewers can mark pages as patrolled. I don't think it's appropriate to cast all the blame on Vanjagenije where he probably thought I would endorse his action. So not only am I more than tangentially involved, morally I'm probably more to blame than anyone else although I wasn't holding the gun. This should be discussed like grown men and not in the circus pit of ANI for the peanut gallery and his dog to pronounce on a recently promoted admin who certainly did not think he was doing anything wrong. Its 3.30 am here and I'm getting rather tired of working for Wikipedia for weeks at all hours due to time zones and I would prefer that we all take a fresh look at the situation in the morning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Something I'm certainly willing to do. I discussed this exhaustively with several other administrators and two arbitrators off-wiki before taking it to ANI in the hopes I could think of a way to approach this that ended well for everyone. Unfortunately, I believed I had run out of ways to communicate that the 1,500 edits needed to be reverted, and I believed another MfD would be a poor choice, as "unused" is a perfectly acceptable deletion rationale and the lack of transclusions would color any additional discussion there. Both Vanjagenije and yourself are obviously good-faith editors, and saying that you're net positives would be an understatement, as the net has long since disappeared off into the horizon. My first thought was to discuss on talk pages and hopefully reach a quiet conclusion (as was my second, third, and fourth, at the very least). My next (fifth?) thought was to take this to MfD for further consensus-building, but there were issues with that mentioned above - there's a reason we don't orphan templates or recategorize pages before XfD outcomes, as the effect on discussion is extreme. My sixth thought was to bite the bullet and handle the mass reverts myself in the hopes of still keeping this out of ANI, but both an administrator and an arbitrator (probably wisely) noted that the end result of that would be both of us winding up as the subject of an ArbCom case. I'm now on my seventh thought, and frankly, I wish I wasn't. You are absolutely correct that there was no reason this couldn't be handled on a user talk page, but for better or worse, no progress was made after many attempts. My latest message was not acknowledged despite the admin remaining online. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Granting New Page Reviewer

Hi Kudpung. Could you give me an overview of your process when reviewing new page reviewer permissions requests? I've been largely leaving you (and a few others) to do your own thing, because you probably have a better idea of exactly what you're looking for than I do. I know the necessary qualities, of course, but this is one of the more difficult rights to assess the granting criteria. Still, there's been such a flood of requests that I should be pitching in. For the few I've reviewed, I've looked at their existing patrol log, their CSD logs, and any AfC contributions that jump out, but it's not necessarily easy to find those among the other contributions (there must be a tool for that, right?). If I were to start reviewing requests more regularly, what would you prefer me to add to or change with that process? Thanks for your input. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, the easiest thing to do is to look at the ones at PERM that I and various admins have been processing and see the comments we made when asking questions or declining. I check:

• User talk page to get an idea of communication skill. E.g. I probably don't accord the right to someone who communicates in telephone text style, talks like a 7th grader or a rapper, and says things like 'Hey, bro' (but remember, I'm a retired British professor of English and I'm very old fashioned - and proud of it}
• User talk page to look for complaints of poor patrolling or reverted CSDs, etc.
• The edit history at Supercount. I expect to see at least three fairly recent consecutuve months of regular editing. Beware of the users who claim to be regular editors or patrollers, those ones are usually exactly the opposite - some haven't patrolled or edited in years, but they don't think we're going to check. Anyone who has done only 900 or so edits this year is going to get very close scrutiny. Anyone who has done hardly any edits at all this year, whatever they've done in the past, is not going to get the bit - mainly on the premise that they are not up to date with new policies, etc.
• AfC: if they've done a fair number of AfC reviews without any problems, that would compensate for a low level of other patrolling. However, there are no logs for AfC reviews.
• Block log. Not all blocks are of the kind that would prevent me from according the right, but too many recent 3R might.
• Page Curation log. This is a big plus if they've used Page Curation extensively. Check for blue linked CSDs and find out why they are blue. There are no logs for Twinkle patrols, and from what I understand, there nver will be.
• Other user rights. If they haven't actually done a lot ot of Recent changes or vandalism patrols but already have a raft of rights, chances are very strong they are just a hat collector.
• Finally, I apply a lot of gut feeling.

I know I'm not supposed to be, but I'm probably a bit more lenient on the ladies. Hope all this helps. It sounds complicated but it actually never takes more than about three minutes to do for each candidate. In doing so, you'll also get some surprises and you might even catch the occasional sock. Don't worry if you get it wrong occasionally - we can always remove the right easily. Once we seem to have reaped the max of reviewers I'm going to start a campaign to get them all to do something about the massive New Pages Feed backlog, while encouraging them to use Page Curation instead of Twinkle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Note

Hi Kudpung: Just a note that despite the recent block you performed, Light2021 (talk · contribs) is continuing to solicit users on their talk page to investigate articles for deletion, on both 11 November 2016 (diff) and now 19 November 2016 (diff). This comes across as contradicting the block that you performed per the discussion here. So, letting you know about this. North Amehttp://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Light2021rica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up NA. TPA withdrawn. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Reforms comment

Over at my talk, you asked, "The question remains: Were the reforms at all worthwhile?" My answer is yes. I do think that putting the threshold at 70% helped address the "supermajority" problem (though perhaps 2/3 would be even better -- though 67% is not a real significant change from 70...) and I think the increased visibility that occurs by putting up the watchlist notice gets more "ordinary" editors involved -- in theory the increase is drawing more than just those who haunt the drama boards. I also think limiting the number of questions any single editor could ask was also worthwhile (I didn't mind answering legitimate questions, even if there were a bunch. I did mind the the people trying to play "gotcha"). To me, I think that the next two reforms would possibly be a word limit on !votes and any discussion of anyone's vote moved immediately to the talk page (perhaps with a link that says, "further discussion here" when needed). Perhaps also establishing a rule on who can move discussions to talk or strike votes /discussions, and so on (i.e. anyone who has !voted on either side probably should not also be policing the RfA -- which is something I found to be a problem) Perhaps one other change could be to state that anyone who alters their comments must use strikeout to show what they previously stated (I had one !voter at my RfA who changed their comments repeatedly to update them to be in line with others... which was problematic), unless they wish to strike their !vote and/or comments altogether, in which case they can do so, perhaps leaving a diff. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment Montanabw. I still don't think the reforms have brought a net benefit to the RfA system. At any rate, they haven't encouraged more editors to come forward and suffer what is still an indignity. Nothing will change until some controls over the voters are introduced such as thee are on all the other major Wikipedias. Maybe with the twofold increase in participation it's time to keep the obvious trolls off the project and also from breaking their Arbcom topic bans by discussing the subject and continuing to harass other users with unprovoked PA.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Page That You Unreviewed

I saw that the page was tagged for deletion, with which I concurred. If I marked it as approved that was an error. However, does that mean that a page that is tagged for speedy deletion needs to stay unreviewed? In that case, what is to keep all of the future reviewers from having to view the page and also leave it unreviewed? What, short of actual deletion, gets the page out of unreviewed status? Maybe there is something that I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Rob, to be quite honest , at this stage I don't fully undersand either what is happening now. The curation toolbar appears to now have a bug or bugs. Theoretically, as I understand what has been done:

1. Anyone can still tag pages - most unfortunately, because the whole exercise was supposed to prevent incorrect tagging, and prevent access by just anyone to the Page Curation tool - in much the same way as use of the AfC Helper Script is controled.
2. Only New Page Reviewers can mark a page as 'patrolled/reviewed'
3. Only pages that are 'patrolled/reviewed' will be indexed for search engines (but this is what was supposed to be happening for years but wasn't working).
4. Maintenance tagged pages will remain un-reviewed in the New Page Feed and will be released for search engine indexing after a fully accredited reviewer has reviewed them again.
5. Pages that are not 'patrolled/reviewed' within 90 days will automatically be indexed for search engines- so either reviewers still have to work fairly fast, or we need more reviewers.
6. In the case of a wrongly reviewed page, un-reviewing it will be too late to stop it being indexed. Google has a dedicated bot that references new Wikipedia pages as fast as they lose the invisible NOINDEX html tag. It's too late for those articles, and however libelous a page may be, its impossible to get it removed from Google's results and cache - even if one has a powerful lawyer.

What we have now is a new user group that is pretty much powerless apart from the psychological impact that might make very young and other inexperienced users think twice about wanting to tag new pages, and that the NOINDEX (which should have been happening for years anyway) might somewhat deter the paid SEO spammers.

What we 'do' have which we never had before, is an overview of who is doing the actual reviewing, if not over everyone who can still tag a page. We'll have to give it time, perhaps another year or so, then extend the restriction so that no one without the user right can tag new pages at all. I'm also pinging Jbhunley on all this, because he seems to have a fairly good overview of what's supposed to be happening, and MusikAnimal because I believe he's one of the WMF devs who has been setting up the right.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The way I understand that it should go is that deletion tagged pages should, in general, be marked reviewed but a NOINDEX gets transcluded by the deletion template so it does not get picked up by Google due to its status changing to reviewed. There was a problem with not being able to use {{NOINDEX}} in main space but I think that is fixed. If not that is the main reason for not marking a deletion tagged article as reviewed. Another reason for leaving deletion tagged articles unreviewed is often people do not do maintinance tagging or otherwise complete their review if they tag for deletion. It is pretty common to see articles with deletion taggs with simple things like stub, orphan, bare links, no cats etc which have not been tagged or resolved.

I think best practice should be that deletion tagged articles still have maint tagging done ([BLP]PROD and AfD) and be watchlisted by the reviewer until the deletion is resolved. CSD articles get tagged if kept (since there is no point in tagging up a CSDed article). The NPP tool should not be automatically marking pages reviewed when they are tagged for maintinance or deletion. Only a reviewer purposely clicking 'reviewed' should do that because it is possible to tag without finishing a review and once an article is marked reviewed Google slurps it up. I thought WMF Devel was fixing that but evidently it has not yet done so.

From the conversation going on at ANI I don't know if the reforms will actually get implemented. The things which seemed to me to be non-controversially bound up in the new user right (restricting the new page feeds and NPP tool, removing the NPP cats/userboxes, changing the NPP project into the NPR project etc) are being blocked by a couple people for reasons I do not comprehend beyond that they just do not like. I mean what did people at the RfC think they were !voting on, a new right that does nothing? Without those at a minimum the whole thing is pretty toothless. (Funny how the people who bitch about bad deletion tagging and biting newcomers kick up a shitstorm for the most pedantic reasons when faced with a way to address those issues. Much respect to Kudpung for getting this as far as he has.)

So, in short. If the deletion templates are now able to use {{NOINDEX}} and the article has been otherwise properly reviewed I do not see a reason it should not be marked reviewed to get it out of the queue but it is always a good idea to keep it on your watchlist until the deletion is resolved. Jbh^Talk 17:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley There is a lot of pettyfgging Wikilawyering going on by people who are more concerned with their tasks of being attorney's clerks in other places. There is a lot of detraction by people who are more concerned about how the necessary rules affect them personally rather than the good of Wikipedia as a whole - some of whom might not have bothered to have their say during the two major RfC. There is a lot of confusion being sown by newbies, inexperienced editors, and long-time accounts who have hardly edited for years. Add to all that the inability of the community to support the project with proper stats and then complaining that they haven't been provided, and the inability of the WMF, as yet, to provide a proper system of user logs for the patrolling of new pages. Already the system is showing its toothlessness as users who have been accorded he right are already continuing to refuse to read or understand the instructions and are wrongly tagging pages and possibly biting new users, just like they did before. Recap:

• No new articles or any other kind of pages listed in the new page feeds should be indexed by Google until passed as OK for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Articles do not need to be 100% perfect to be published in mainspce, but those tagged for deletion and those tagged for other serious issues should certainly not be marked as patrolled/reviewed as that will release them for immediate indexing by Google within seconds, even if the review is reverted.

I'll ask once more for MusikAnimal, xaosflux, Graeme Bartlett, BU Rob13, DGG; and Kaldari {for the WMF), to chime in here, but please read the thread carefully first, because we need to move forward, not backwards, because in this respect we have asked the Foundation to complete some critical issues concerning new pages that they did not complete at the time of its development.

Finally, this thread is far too important to be simply on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So we should move this talk to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers or somewhere more related to the topic. My opinion is that those marked for deletion should be marked patrolled so that other patrollers don't need to look again. But I agree that we don't want them indexed. So we need to make sure that the page curation adds the tags first before marking patrolled, and that we have included the noindex in the appropriate tags. Also all the patro9llers will have to know about this aim to not index bad pages. In the longer run we could use edit filters to stop undesirable behaviour, and possible a bot that will detect unpatrolled pages hitting the 90 day auto index mark. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Kudpung and User:Graeme Bartlett - This thread is indeed far too important for this talk page. However, I don't see discussion at the suggested page. I have one three-part question and suggestion, about the status of new pages that have been tagged for deletion. If a page is tagged for any of the three deletion processes, is it marked as reviewed, and is it indexed? A page that has been tagged for speedy deletion should, in my view, absolutely be marked as reviewed, and absolutely not indexed. If the speedy deletion is declined, then it should be indexed. If the speedy templates transclude noindex, that does the non-indexing correctly, and what would be helpful would be to mark the page as reviewed, so that it doesn't keep showing up as needing reviewing. My own opinion is that a page that is PROD'd should not be indexed, but I can see that either way, but it should be marked as reviewed. A page that is nominated for deletion should be marked as reviewed. Is this being done? I don't see the Reviewer talk page as being a place that questions get answered; maybe I am missing the obvious. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A more central page is probably a good idea. If the hoverbar isn't working the way we want it to - lets get someone to fix it. I'm in favor marking a page as patrolled if it has already been patrolled - we don't need to keep presenting it to editors for review. It sounds like some of this is a new argument for revisiting more features of Wikipedia:Flagged revisions and possibly tying in a quality level to indexing. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:New pages patrol needs to include this aim and how to achieve it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

'noIndex' is nothing new. It was supposed to have been in force for years already but nobody noticed it was broke until we started rolling out this new user right. Let's not detract from the one and only major objectives which are to vastly improve the quality of reviewing new pages and the fact that it's so important that it should be a WMF responsibility and not be expected to be tweaked by volunteer scripts and edit filters. The WMF has repeatedly been given, and reminded of, a list of tweaks needed to the 'hoverbar' since June this year and here we are now, SIX months down the line and still nothing done, and being asked to join a wishlist queue of minor 'convenience' gadgets. And admins still faced with the task of patrolling the patrollers and and ever growing monumental backlog. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree its not new - I was bringing up options for improving what we flag or don't flag as index ready - and perhaps it needs to be more than just "the page isn't bad" to actually "the page is decent". This would likely require bringing back quality version, something that enwiki didn't want before - but is in use on some other projects (like the English Wikibooks) is using where pages get a quality rating. The community may have wide feelings on this, and the implementation would be hard with out large size - just throwing out some ideas. I'm 100% in favor of getting a speedy deletion tag to work with NOINDEX if it is not. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

As it is, I never know if a page I edited has been marked reviewed without checking the status--there are too many possibilities. The default should be to have articles not marked reviewed inadvertently. NPPatrollers should do all the basic tagging and review simultaneously, but sometimes (or perhaps often) they will just see an article for other reasons than intending to do reviews, and they will tag something or make an edit or move a page to a correct title without realizing it has not been reviewed, and not check beyond that tag or edit. I do not know how many reviewers are reviewing without using the Page Curation toolbar--I know that I very rarely use it-- I much prefer the old multiline display where I can scan quickly.

I'm not too concerned with NOINDEX being inadvertently removed--whatever we get will be an improvement over the present, and it would be quite unhelpful to let pages stay in mainspace indefinitely without indexing. How would we ever notice? DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, DGG, we'll certainly get an improvement. In fact as soon as the SEO spammers notice that their paid-for work won't be shown by Google, they might think again. Pages won't stay indefinitely in mainspace without being indexed. If not marked as patrolled within 90 days, they will be automatically indexed. Where we won't see an improvement is that all and sundry are still allowed to wrongly tag the pages and bite the good faith new creators. We still need to think of a way round that. But at least we have made a first step in convincing the community that some controls are needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung and Jbhunley: I feel like we've already been over this, but just to re-iterate: All new articles that are tagged with CSD templates remain noindexed due to the {{NOINDEX}} template that is embedded in {{db-meta}} (the CSD master template). You DO NOT need to keep an article unreviewed in order to prevent it from being indexed by Google. Although it used to be the case that {{NOINDEX}} had no effect in the main namespace, it now works there (but only for new articles). Also, it is not true that "Google has a dedicated bot that references new Wikipedia pages as fast as they lose the invisible NOINDEX html tag." It takes Google, on average, several hours to index a page after it loses the noindex tag. It's also not true that "its impossible to get it removed from Google's results and cache". As soon as Google crawls a page with a noindex tag it is removed from Google's search results. Also, it isn't true that the WMF has done nothing to improve the Page Curation toolbar since June. We updated all the maintenance tags to match Twinkle as you requested (T147224), and the deletion tags should be updated soon. We concentrated on fixing the noindex issues first, since you said this was the highest priority. Anyway, not trying to start an argument, just wanted to clear up some of the confusion and respond to your comments. Kaldari (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not getting at you personally Ryan - in fact you've been most helpful. I do realise however, just as with Brandon, that even you are not able to fully convince your masters (or mistress) that these are critical issues affecting the very core and fabric of what we volunteers work for free to provide and maintain. As I stated above, if this were not a core MediaWiki extension and if it were something we had direct access to like Twinkle instead of having being brushed off at Wikimania, having to jump through hoops of hour-long Skype interviews with the WMF, and a muddle at Phabricator, these fixes would have been made by us long ago even if we are not paid for our efforts. Just like ACTRIAL probably soon will be, because our community is getting rather weary of paid spam articles being let in because we have no effective means of controlling it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• While we're talking about the age old problem of a friendly and fruitfull collaboration between the volunteers and the WMF whose salaries our free work pays for, this is as good a juncture as any to remind them of a comment by DGG three years ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Robert, I'm placing my reply at the bottom of this thread because I had to search the history to see where you had made your comment. I think Kaldari has adequately explained the technicalities of what has been done, (even if I don't fully understand it myself) and I cannot be drawn into that because I'm not supposed to have a clue about how MediaWiki is coded. My comment above in bold is what I expected to get when I requested no-indexing to be repaired. It's important for two main reasons:

1. It might dissuade spammers from wasting their time spamming the encyclopedia with their paid attempts at SEO for their clients.
2. Keeping deletion-tagged articles as unreviewed provides a fail safe in that they remain in the feed for further checking by accredited reviewers. What this new user right still does not prevent are wrongful deletion tagging and biting new users by newbies and other inexperienced users. THat's the compromise we have to live with and that's why we need more than just DGG and me to check to daily work at NPP.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

What a User Right and Technical Fixes Do Not Prevent

It is of course true that the new user right does not prevent wrongful deletion tagging or biting new users. Actually, of course, we have two changes. The first is a user right. The second is correct implementation of NOINDEX. The latter minimizes misuse by paid editors. What the user right does is to minimize clueless patrolling by inexperienced editors with more enthusiasm than knowledge or wisdom. I will comment on a peripheral matter, and that is the biting of new editors, but also about the concern about the biting of new editors. I think that do not bite the newbies is an excellent concept, but one that, because it has achieved a sort of status of ancient truth (like a Scripture, but actual adherents of any religion know that a Scripture, of any religion, requires wise interpretation), may do more harm than good. The good that it does is that it encourages experienced editors to be welcoming to new editors, in spite of the complexities of Wikipedia that new editors need patience in learning and working with. The harm that it does comes in two varieties. First, when it is quoted by new editors back to experienced editors, it has become a cudgel that can be used by new combative editors. The rule was never meant to be quoted by new editors. It was always meant to be quoted by experienced editors to other experienced editors to remind them to be patient. Sometimes new editors who are being (often gently) cautioned by experienced editors about personalizing conflicts or about civility will use the rule to rebuke the more experienced editor, claiming that they are being bitten. My own contention is that by the time an editor can quote the rule, they are no longer a new editor entitled to special handling. The second type of harm is that some experienced editors take the rule not to bite the newcomers so seriously that they are slow to deal with problematic new editors, especially with those who have conflict of interest. Unfortunately, a few new editors need to be bitten. While the rule against biting them is a good idea in principle, it has become so central that it allows problematic new editors to be handled too gently too long.

What the new user right should do is to minimize wrongful deletion tagging, or, on the other hand, quick approval of crud. It won't do anything about newbies who wear out their welcome quickly. That is my thought for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with what you say. To me, in the context of articles, I consider "biting the newcomers" to be things like deletion tagging without some explanation of what is going on, not responding or responding rudely or with completely wrong information, quoting a lot of acronyms without explanation of what they mean etc. Politly informant people of our policies and guideline or calling them on problematic behavior is never biting in my opinion nor is being firm and direct if they press on.

It is hard to be supportive while enforcing rules and norms. I think am pretty conscious of this need and I still find myself at times being too terse/direct on one end and having bad faith or ineduicatable editors take me on a ride on the other.

One of the benifit I see in corralling those who regularly deal with new pages into a group is the opertunity for training, or more properly, establishing a central place for giving advice and best practices. For instance in the case of biting if there is a 'best practice' that says for instance: "First give a gentle rebuke and explain why the action is not proper and invite them to ask questions or direct them to some place for help. If that does not work repeat the rebuke and engage them by asking questions such as if there is something they do not understand or what they are trying to accomplish. If after this the editor is still acting in a problematic manner it is necessary to escalate to..." Having such provides several benefits: One, it is something that patrollers/reviewers should have all read so they have an idea of what is expected of them; Two, it establishes a behavioral baseline that they can be judged against; Three, common expectation plus consistent feedback leads to a better and moderately more uniform experience for users.

New editors often have no idea that Wikipedia has content guidelines and in my, very strong, opinion those who take up the task of interacting with those new users must have, at a minimum, a firm grasp on those guidelines. It also is best that none of them be pedantic nitwits but I know better than to ask the impossible Jbh^Talk 17:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley and User:Kudpung - You both mentioned issues about deletion tagging. I would like to know what you think are the proper guidelines for new page reviewers with regard to deletion tagging. Unfortunately, a lot of new pages really are either promotional crud or clueless crud. (Other new pages show hope of possibly being capable of working into decent articles, and it is there that it is most important to interact constructively with new editors who, in particular, may not understand about references and verifiability.) It is my understanding that there is agreement that promotional crud needs to be tagged quickly (and a few things, such as attack pages, even more qui8ckly). So do you have any specific advice having to do with clueless crud, things that will never be reasonable articles, other than being civil? (I agree that it is even important to be civil to spammers, but civility does not mean giving them a free ride.) Also, do you have any general advice about proper and improper deletion tagging?Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Hmmm... the way I usually handle "clueless crud" is to tag them and leave something like {{first article}} (That template could really be improved) or edit some of my boilerplate text and leave a note. If it is a one edit wonder I usually assume it is an undisclosed paid editor so they are lower down on my engagement scale as are obvious adverts. I do try to remember to at least leave an appropriate welcome template though.

I tend to rely on canned templates (from Wikipedia or my clips) for my initial interactions. It is not best practice but the volume of articles keeps initial personal action impractical and it keeps the vagaries of my mood minimized. Most good faith editors will ask questions, either from the welcome or in response to the tagging. This is where I think most damaging newbie biting can occur. These are the new editors who are genuinely interested in learning to write an article (some may be spammers trying tho social engineer their article into Wikipedia but they usually easy to spot) and they need a bit of care to explain sourcing and how wiki-notibility is different from being a notable person/company/whatever. For initial explanations, again, I have a clipboard of different snippets which I can edit together to give a plain English (no WP:BlahBlah unless it is to introduced the term) explanation since the same issues and questions repeatedly come up. Also, if they are writing 'clueless crap' about something other themself or some company/product (most people who start out with COI are not going to become general editors) it is good to point them to similar articles that they may enjoy working on. These editors who engage with you are the ones who are most likely to become general editors and it is important not to be short or bite them. Take the time, or at least the text, to explain the basics without jargon and point them to the TEAHOUSE or some other resource where they can get longer term support/help.

Truth be told I do not think that Wikipedia gets many of its new general editors from people who start out by writing new articles. At least not those that start with BLPs or companies/products. I would guess that editors who stay make 50+ edits before creating a new article, certianly it is something I would like to see stats on. Jbh^Talk 01:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jbhunley - I agree that it is unfortunate that some good-faith new editors think that the best way that they can contribute to Wikipedia is to write a new article. In fact there are many other less burdensome ways that new editors can contribute. At the same time, it is even more unfortunate that, in my experience, many, maybe most, of the editors who contribute One New Article to Wikipedia are not good-faith editors but are promotional, and the guideline of do not bite the newbies has been raised to such an exalted status that we are tied in knots so that we won't bite editors who need to be bitten. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon and Jbhunley:,the vast majority of all new pages are trash as anyne knows who has done a significant amount of NPP. I do a couple of hours a day and I don't actually get round to passing many as fit - I'm either tagging fr CSD or using my tools to delete the ones already tagged by other patrollers. What we must be on the lookoutr for are very subtle spam masquerading as articles - the kind that newbie ptrolers don't recognise. A look through my talk page archives shows that while I never bite new users, I,m perticularly blunt with the ones who I know re trying to game the system and the 'Hey bro' rappers.

We were lucky to get what we got on those two RfC - and even with particularly healthy consensuse. However, at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right started by an admin who is using a false premise to get consensus for his 'I don't like it' campaign, there is a risk it will all be overthrown and we'll be back to square one. He's also trying to get a consensus to muzzle the community from proposing any new changes that might become necessary, using more lies about what I and others have said. If he continues, I'll ask for a review of his very newly acquired adminship (after a very short tenure) which nevertheless had a high number of very relevant opposes. We have to move forward with new page Patrolling, not backwards, but for some very odd reason, many users think of their own personal ambitions and userboxes rather than what's best for the Wiki. See more talk on that RfC under the thread started by Brad. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: See also the talk page of tha RfC and your'll see that I really am a no nonsense person.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

admin user: Mdann52 deleting my page

Dear Admin the admin right user: Mdann52 recommend for deleting my newly created page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Subashini That is a genuine article with references. Kindly allow me to create the article about. Dr. Subashini

thank you thiagu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiagupillai (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thiagupillai. This may have been a genuine article but it made no plausible claims of notability. Mdann52 was quite correct in tagging it for deletion, and I have deleted it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Thiagupillai - Creating an article again after it has been speedy-deleted without discussing it and without addressing the reasons for its deletion is considered tendentious editing and is disruptive and may result in being blocked. Wikipedia does not have a rule that I am aware of that being "genuine" is a reason to keep an article. I am not an administrator and didn't read the deleted article, but I have more confidence in the judgment of the two administrators who deleted it than I do in a statement that it was a "genuine article". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Tsinghua-MIT Global MBA

Dear Kudpung,

you just left me a message that I do not provide accurate sources. Can you send me the link where this was the case and I will add the source?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friesehamburg (talk • contribs) 12:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Friesehamburg, I left a message about an article you created that read:

'Not a school or university. Non notable teaching programme.'

I think you must confusing me with someone or something else. Please sign your post. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung,

Thank you for your review and guidance. In reply to your comment "...Non notable teaching programme.", yes, the Tsinghua-MIT MBA program is not very well-known outside Chinese-speaking world but is actually highly reputable in China and receives substantial resources. For example, Dominic Barton, Global Managing Director of McKinsey, lectures for the program every semester.

With increasing number of inquiries about the program from people especially outside China, we as alumni feel that a wiki article would be pertinent to providing useful information. In the following days the article will be revised with more concise, objective and factual contents, with reference to wiki pages of other notable MBA programs. May I ask if you could remove the flag for deletion later on? Thank you.

Mzhang88 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not for publicity. If this educational programme is sufficiently notable to meet Wikipedia criteria, there will be articles dedicated to it in the mainstream press. Those would be the sources that are needed. The programme does not inherit notability from its lecturers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand where the issue is. We will add mainstream media sources in the following days. Thank you! Mzhang88 (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

my article about Dr. Subashini , deletion, your decision

Dear Admin, thanks for quick reply. Is there any way to create a page about her. she did commendable work in the field of Tamil Heritage. [ sorry to trouble you ]- Thanks, Thiagu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiagupillai (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thiagupillai, her work may be commendable but the article does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of her or her work. The references supplied are not about her, there are only very fleeting mentions of her name in some other organisations she has worked on that also do not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Contested PROD

It may well be that I don't need to tell you, because you are watching the article, but just in case I thought I would mention that your PROD at Radhika Chandiramani has been contested by the creator of the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin assistance

Hello, is it possible you could send me a copy of this deleted article? It bit the dust 7 years ago, even though the place has reasonable claims to fame (largest cabaret club in the UK/venue for World darts championships.) Like most venues which closed in the pre-internet era, online sources are sparse, but I found this and this which could reasonably serve as the basis for a shortish article and I'm wondering in particular if the first of those sources was in the article at the time. Thanks in advance. Valenciano (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You can see the article in a Wikipedia mirror here. The refs you found were not in it. The BBC is a good one and here is another Sentinel ref you can use. Yes it's a shame that pre-internet stuff precludes some worthy things from Wikipedia notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's the old systematic bias thing that a lot of regional newspapers still don't have their archives freely available online (as I suspect was the case with the Stoke Sentinel at the time of the AFD) and therefore we'll have more articles on recent places, since "I reckon there are lots of offline sources" is not an argument that carries weight in an AFD. Anyway, thanks again. Valenciano (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Valenciano, see also these at Google Books. Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Kudpung. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Give It Up (Nathan Sykes song)

Can you semi-protect the page? 115.164.186.149 (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please make your request at WP:RFPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker carrying cake and candles) I don't see any policy-based reason to semi-protect this article, so going to RFPP would be a waste of time anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PERM/NPR

Bravo! No backlog :) Also, I still have not dismissed your ping notification about #Page That You Unreviewed. I will get to it when I can... that's a long thread! Hopefully Kaldari cleared up any confusion. I actually did not take part in the implementation of NOINDEX, etc. Sorry I am not of more help, it's busy times and the holidays here in the US. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You're lucky, we menial volunteers and old age pensioners don't get holidays, not even today on my birthday :( Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

BTW, MusikAnimal,

1. What is the technical definition of New User as dscribed at Wikipedia:User access levels#New users?
2. What is the technical criterion of New User as displayed in the special:New Pages Feed?

THanks, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Holidays still happen as volunteers, too! I didn't mean I'm not doing work because I have the day off, I enjoy this stuff and work well beyond working hours (as a volunteer). Everything we've discussed thus far was in a volunteer capacity... Adding the new page reviewer right, helping with page curation, that was just for fun. But I also like my family and try to devote time to them, so even as a volunteer I'll take a mini wikibreak, and you should too! :) On that note, happy birthday!! Seriously, step away from the wiki if you want to! To answer your question, I believe both are referring to registered accounts that are unconfirmed. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Kudpung,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

File:NPP backlog 01 October 2016.png

Hi Kudpung,

may you please publish the data behind this chart? Is older data available?--Recent contributor (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, the answer to both questions questions is 'no'. The data is what you see in the chart. If you would like more recent data, you will be able to get it from the New Pages Feed - but you are probably not yet qualified to access that page.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Anyone can still access the feed (even unregistered users), just anyone without the NPP user right can't see the Page Curation interface once they click through to an article (Making no comment here as to whether the RfC allowed for viewing the page to be restricted - I was away during a lot of the RfC and need to catch up fully still on the exact consensus reached.) Mike1901 (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Mike1901, apparently anyone can access the feed but only New Page Reviewers can use it to mark new pages as patrolled. The current backlog is shown in the page footer. Click on the image to see how I created it. No other stats are available to my knowledge. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Tsinghua-MIT Global MBA

Dear Kudpung,

I just would like to inform you that we did several changes on the website you claimed as not relevant (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tsinghua-MIT_Global_MBA). We added the required sources to prove that the program is well-known. Even though many people in the Western world might not know about the program, in China it is one of the most famous business programs with a lot of public awareness. Since several editors are not native-english speakers, I will retain a native speaker to review the writings in the next days.

Whenever you have questions or comments, please let me know before you report the site. Thank you very much!

Best regards, friesehamburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friesehamburg (talk • contribs) 16:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion: List of game companies in Singapore

Hi there, In Singapore we have a thriving list of games companies, and currently the only places that bring these together are strange lists of outdated companies on old forums.

Some of the companies included have shipped large games, but for whatever reason don't have eikipedia pages of their own. Nonstop were purchased by activision/king for 38 million dollars, and had one game released before being shuttered. Booster pack were invested in for millions of dollars. Springloaded have more than 6 million players in their games, were the first developer in Singapore to make a 3DS game Gattai won various international competitions for their games. Lambda Mu made Pixel people which is another huge title globally. ratloop mada a game for console that has more that a million sales (they have a wikipedia pages, so I dont know why that didnt link)

I could continue listing their successes.

This is a valuable resource for anyone looking to get a job in the industry in singapore, all the active companies listed still offer paid employment and are working hard to release new products. I would love this page to exist here, otherwise I have to post it on another forum somewhere and wait for it to rot!

I fear that if I make pages for each of the companies, they too will be deemed irrelevant.

So shall I remove the red companies and move them to a paragraph describing the companies in Singapore? Which seems weird. Or make pages for the companies, if the later, how can I ensure that the pages are not deleted?

Will adding citations to all the listed companies (links to their websites etc) help?

Thanks! James (SpringloadedDev) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringloadedDev (talk • contribs) 08:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There is little chance that articles you create from the red linked entries will be kept unless they can perfectly fulfill our requirements at WP:ORG. My best advice is simply to clean up the page by removing the red links, then create articles one-by-one offline until they meet our criteria. Please sign your posts.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Page curation question

Quick question since I've noticed you comment on this before. I thought adding tags via page curation was not supposed to mark articles as reviewed anymore because of the NO INDEX feature. I added an unreferenced tag to Trinidadian local elections, 2016 and used the tool to leave a note on the creators talk page and offering to help clean it up if they could find sources. It appears that also marked the article as reviewed, which I had not intended to do since it still needs cleanup in my mind. Any thoughts? TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Toni. It could be that because you have the New Page Reviewer right, the act of tagging a page marks it as patrolled/reviewed. I don't think that's supposed to happen if you wanted to leave the page as unreviewed. The person who would can provide the best information on this is Kaldari. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Any reviewing action done through the page curation toolbar marks an article as reviewed (adding maintenance tags, nominating for deletion, etc.). If you don't want the article marked as reviewed, you can unreview it by opening the review panel and clicking "Mark as unreviewed". Hope that helps. Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Got it. That is how I thought it used to work, but thought with the NO INDEX feature being added now tagging no longer did that. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was doing wrong. Thanks again. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Help please

Hi Kudpung/Archive Nov 2016 I was trying to check my logs and to my surprise I see that I am supposed to have "patrolled" articles, some of which I created. I don’t even know what patrol means — all I know is that there is some kind of a connection between wp:npp, patrols, and reviews. Why are patrols being attributed to me so often? Is it something I am doing unwittingly, a wiki-software bug, or something more sinister? I would appreciate a response on my talkpage, thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me