User talk:Kudpung/Archive Feb 2015

Final warning on Awesomeninja's talk page
Hi Kudpung,

I noticed that you put a final warning for disruption on Awesomeninja's talk page. While I must admit that I vehemently despise "cool teen talk", it's my understanding that a final warning was only to be used after several warnings had been previously issued, or when a first instance of vandalism is so gross and severe that it deserves an almost immediate block. I don't see any previous warnings on Awesomeninja's talk page, and I hardly think that a NOTNOW RfA is such a severe offense to require a final warning right off the bat. -- Biblio worm  15:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, . I have been around in  life and on  Wikipedia a long time and I  use my  judgement  very  carefully and do  a lot  of research  before I  do  anything  or criticise anyone's work or actions. I  helped rewrite and develop many  of the warning  templates -  I  think  I  understand the guidelines for their use. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, but it does not seem to directly address the point. This is the description for the level 4 template: "Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning". How is a newbie (presumably unaware of what admins really are) filing a NOTNOW RfA editing in bad faith? Isn't it policy that users should assume good faith unless there is a very good reason not to? Besides, three users (myself included) messaged the user in almost immediate succession after he transcluded his RfA. I think three rapid-fire messages and a speedy deletion notice was enough to get the point across. In any case, I have no desire to argue, so I won't say any more. -- Biblio worm  00:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It does address the point because it  states: do a lot of research before I do anything or criticise anyone's work or actions. That's good advice for anyone, particularly  users who have been around for only  a relatively  short  time and start  criticising  the work  of admins  who, contrary  to  what  you  may  have been led to  believe, are not  all  bad, do not  all  misuse their tools, and do  not  all  apply poor judgement. Experience is the key. Now let's both  get  back  to  work, . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC for AfC reviewer requirement
Hey Kudpung, is there any new information on that? I don't think I was actually around when it happened (oops) but... yeah... where can I find the infos...? Thanks! &mdash; kikichugirl speak up! 01:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It was based on  two  RfC that  I  started. One was for a requirement for qualifications, followed up with  one to  establish the actual  requirement  and enact  it. Both were carried by consensus. It's all history  now. There was another one proposed by  which  was an attempt  to  get  the imp;ementation  sharpened up, but  although  I  supported it, the RfC was not  heavily  subscribed: That said, we have reached the stage now where the technical implementation  needs to  be seriously  reviewd, or to  implement  the consensus of April  last  year to  scrap  AfC and either replace it  with  a software package similar to  that  of NPP, or to  merge the whole process to  NPP  entirely. I support  both  proposals wholeheartedly and the community  just  needs to  decide which  one they  want. The problem we are currently faced with  is that  AfC has become a battleground for volunteer programmers vying  for first  place, and is fast  turning  into  a walled garden. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
 * WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria
 * WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation
 * Thanks. I might be elitist or have high standards, but the dubious reviews I've seen today, from several users, make me want to quit the project and cry instead... we definitely need to fix up the criteria. &mdash; kikichugirl speak up! 08:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * check out  the current  discussion  at  WT:AFC, and if you  can, provide diffs for the poor reviews, something  is going  to  break  soon  if DGG and I  can convince the stone wallers at  AfC that  someting  needs to  be done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen it. My question is: Why is AfC so complicated? When I did NPP, I felt myself getting increasingly bitey (I'm increasingly lenient at AfC) but AfC is starting to seem like a mess of blah. If there's a bad patrol at NPP, you stick the CSD tag on right where someone else didn't see it. If there's a bad review, then you gotta revert the review, confuse the newbie, and badness all around. Ugh. &mdash; kikichugirl speak up! 08:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - One particularly bad review I can think of is here: Brad Craddock. The reviewer declined it as "unnotable" when the topic clearly passes WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. It was written like an advertisement but extensive copyeditting turned it into a viable article. It's going to be shown on the Main Page (DYK) in a few days. AfC reviewers have a lot of power in their hands: In many cases, you can either uplift or destroy the spirit of a newbie and their willingness to contribute to Wikipedia. A bad review and a new editor may never want to come back or they get deep misconceptions about Wikipedia. To tell you the truth, the Brad Craddock, article made me rather sad. I had to go into full damage control. --ceradon (talk  • contribs ) 08:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

. . I can  only  reiterate that AfC is only  a very  tiny  project  when compared with the workload at  NPP which  is a serious vetting  process and not  a cosy  little hobby  for some who  want  to  save a handfull  of crap  articles every  day. Sure, the quality of patrolling  at  NPP  is lousy, and it  will  remain  so  until  the community  stops refusing  to  believe that  we need some criteria  of competency  for patrollers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I support scrapping AfC and merging it into NPP or replacing it with and extension/guidedTour replacement as well. —  16:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In which  case, you've done yourself and us a misfavour  by  voting  as you  did  here. Scrapping  AfC is the obvious solution  but  before we get  there we have to  prove to  the community  that  AfC is not  working in its present  concept. History  has shown that  on  Wikipedia, little changes lead to  bigger ones. This would have been a valuable stepping  stone, and still  can be if you  would reconsider. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. —  18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not against merging the AfC and NPP processes, but the reason I have support AfC for now is, as Kudpung says, due to bad patrolling at NPP. Some NPPers (eg: Mr X, WikiDan61, RandyKitty, SL93) do good work, but there is still WP:BITEing going on, so I really think that if we want to put up a hard barrier to reviewing new articles, we apply it consistently across the board. I have some shortcuts on my userpage to check articles nominated for CSD, particularly A7 and G11, and try and salvage anything that I can where possible. (example) However, where I can't I consistently see confused newbies who don't understand why their work will be deleted. As long as a reasonable explanation is given, ideally suggesting another article or website where some of the content could go, is a better approach. Unfortunately it's a more time consuming one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with that, . That's why it's a total paradox that NPPers don't require any qualifications at all. They refuse to read what instructions there are (the ones and I wrote at WP:NPP), rarely make use of the handwritten note feature of the curation tool, and never move an article to Draft namespace. That said, in a way, AfC and NPP are almost identical processes with NPP being by far the most important of the two. Merging would be ideal if the regular experienced AfC reviewers  would migrate with the move. That way, we would have the best of both worlds. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start moving stuff to draft (first example) and see if takes up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Buster7
Hello there. I would appreciate it of you could keep me informed of the case I buster7. I would appreciate it if there could be a sutiable warning for violation rules and his extra rights as a rollbacker. How could there be an accidental rollback? Thank you very muchTheMagikCow (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi  It's a very  strict  rule that editors should not  refactor, re-edit, or remove anything  from  other users' talk  pages or user pages. It  is in fact  quite easy  to  click  a Rollback  button  by  mistake, that's why  we're so  strict  about  handing  out  Rollback  rights.  In  view of the events of earlier today (or tonight  according  to  wherever you  are)  could have every  reason  to  take a swipe at  one of my  edits. It would be a huge coincidence if it  were an accident, but  I  guess we have to  stretch  the rubber band of AGF and presume it  was. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you ! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:ER
You're always welcomed at WP:RETENTION -- GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Shane Ferguson
Hello, could you please semi-protect Shane Ferguson as it's getting a lot of disruptive editors at the moment. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Paracommunications
Hi Kudpung

I don't understand your reasons for proposing deletion of my Paracommunications entry. Please would you explain, as this is my first entry to Wikipedia. What does dicdef mean? And, how should I edit this entry so it is not deleted. Thank you.

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanolan (talk • contribs) 03:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. There is a very  big difference (dicdef = dictionary  definition). That  said, the page will  not  be suitable for Wikipedia at  all, even the more so  that  the word is not  to  be found anywhere else. You  could try  publishing  it  at  Wiktionary which  is a Wikimedia web site., but  although  Wiktionary  is in  the same group, we here don't  work  there. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Done, thanks for the tip. Please feel free to delete, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanolan (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary usage
Hi Kudpung! I just need some advice. Is it okay to use words like "Fu*k off" in edit summaries when directing other users? Isn't it violates our core policy, WP:CIVILITY? Today, I came across an editor who often uses those words in edit summaries. See this. When I asked him not to use such words, he said this. It is not the first time he is using profanity when talking about other fellow editors. Here some one warned him too when he said someone a "miserable shit". You will get to see more such things in his talk page history and elsewhere. I think it's time for an admin to step in and warn. What you think?  Jim Car ter  06:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's never alright to  use such  language either on  edit  summaries or anywhere else. But remember, I  am very  old fashioned and come from  a British background where such  language was never used. It  might  be more modern and more tolerated nowadays, but  I  don't  really  think  it  is, and it's certainly  not  the kind of language that  should be used on  Wikipedia.  I  looked at  the edit  history  and it  seems you  may  have done something  wrong but  I  guess it  wasn't  intentional. I  very  much  liked one comment  of yours I  came across (I seem to  have seen something  very  similar before...), you  should use it more often,  but  carefully  of course, and only  if you  are sure that  the person  is a child (well, under 18 or so). I made myself a golden rule many years ago: always check  out  an editor's user page before you  hit  them with  anything. If the page looks like a teenager's bedroom  wall, chances ar that  they  are a teenager (or even younger), but  on  the other hand, while there are lots of children who  act  like mature adults on  Wikipedia, there are lots of adults who  behave like children ;) Keep  up  the good work, !  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. I strongly condemn the use of such language on Wikipedia. Actually, I don't know what exactly happened but I guess his comment was removed due to an edit conflict. His behavior was so childish that I didn't have to check his user page. Anyway, thank you. I'm just trying to follow your commands :) Cheers,  Jim Car ter  10:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * - Your comment had gone from polite to and I quote "This is not a playground for kids. You're here to build an encyclopedia, why don’t you just grow up and behave as if you are working on the world’s biggest single source of information? A huge number of users are much older than you might think. Try to give others respect in talk pages as well as in edit summaries - How do you expect me to react?,
 * Had you left it at the section where you said you disagreed with my use of words I'd of been more than happy to apologize, As for my "miserable shit" comment elsewhere ... I realized I was wrong and had removed it so it's not really relevant here
 * Sorry Kudpung for barging in here hope you don't mind :) – Davey 2010 Talk 10:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . I don't really mind - if it helps clear the air. However,  "This is not a playground for kids. You're here to build an encyclopedia, why don’t you just grow up and behave as if you are working on the world’s biggest single source of information? A huge number of users are much older than you might think."  is is a brilliant statement if used wisely and one I would recommend being used more often by young editors who are concerned about the crap and strife caused by other young editors. Someone like me though, and an admin to boot, would get shot down in flames as a child hater if we said it. Even the word children is considered taboo on Wikipedia - by the children of course. You're probably not aware of it yet, but as one of the most regular contrubutors to WP:WER I have retired from that project - namely due to the antics of some younger editors and three or four adults who behave like kids a lot of the time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hiya Kudpung, I agree with the statement providing its used wisely, Everyone knows I'm the least patient/short tempered person here so It was obvious saying something like that would tick me off easily,
 * I've not really dealt with any kids really but then again you're alot more active in other areas like NPP etc :)
 * When you overwritten my comment twice, Being very confused and without thinking I simply asked myself "what I stated in the edit summary" ...
 * Anyway I apologize to both Kudpung and to if they were offended/upset - Despite it may not seem like it at times - It's never my intention to offend or upset anyone,
 * Life's too short to start arguments & all that :)
 * Anyway I admit I shouldn't of said it and I sincerely apologize,
 * Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 13:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Little experience
She (Kristin Sutton) doesn't look like she needs a wiki page. And who said I had little experience? It sounds like you're saying I'm dumb. --Satouyoukun (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am saying that with only 182 edits to the encycolpedia pages and wthout having read and thoroughly understood our deletion policies, you are not ready to be doing such maintenance tasks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note for myself: Satouyoukun has been blocked as a sock.Link title

You mentioned HJ mitchen
http://theralphretort.com/wikipedia-blocks-veteran-editor-for-being-pro-gamergate-off-site-1715/ Check this article please — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelligenceMonkey (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? And who are you, if I may ask? I do not take any notice of any crap that is written about Wikipedia on other websites. Also I have every confidence in the adminstrative acts and decisions of . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the block was based completely on something he said somewhere else on the Internet and on a site I don't even read. It wouldn't have anything at all to do with the series of nasty BLP violations and personal attacks! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Problematic new page patroller
Kudpung,

You, I, and about five other editors have cautioned Kges1901 that he or she is making serious mistakes patrolling and speedying new pages. I just noticed another incorrect speedy nom on Yashvardhan Shukla (I converted it to an AfD). Obviously the cautions have not gotten through—do you know what the next step should be?

Thanks!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but wasn't the page previously deleted using the same cause because a nomination by me? and wasn't it also exactly the same content on the page? I tried my best after reading the cautions to not make any mistakes, but... Kges1901 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . The problem with 's patrolling  is that  he has been asked by  an administrator to  stop  patrolling  but  in  defiance of the request  he is continuing  to  do  so.  It  took  me nearly  an  hour this morning  to  check  his last  100 or so  patrolls and while most  of them are OK the accuracy  rate is still  too  low. Thus the issue is not  whether or not  his patrols are accurate but  the enormous work  he is creating  for admins and other editors in  having  to  check  his work. His editing  history  shows that  he cannot  normaly  have accumulated sufficient  experience for this type of work. The alternatives are that  he either stops patrolling, or it  will  be discussed at  ANI  with  a risk  of him  being  blocked or at  least  T-banned from  patrolling. Perhaps however, a couple more warnings may  do  the trick-. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * now that you mention it, I see that Yashvardhan Shukla was speedy deleted before, but if the content was the same, I would also consider that deletion incorrect. The problem is that the criterion you used, A7, is for pages that don't make a "credible claim of significance." That page does: it claims that Shukla is significant because he published a novel at age 13, which is certainly credible (young authors do exist) and could theoretically make him notable (the author actually included a link to a profile of him in a national magazine). I around five minutes searching for other sources to check whether he was actually notable, and decided he wasn't—but I had to use articles for deletion process because it didn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. There's a good reason for this—if it doesn't meet the criteria, it's worth using AfD, which takes more time but makes more sure that we didn't miss any reasons to keep the article.
 * Also, Kges, one of the reasons I was concerned was that you didn't seem interested in talking to any of the people who cautioned you so you could learn more about how to avoid mistakes. I feel a bit better since you responded here. I'd advise you to be much more careful, read the guidelines for speedy deletion very carefully, and above all, ask someone like me or Kupung for advice if you have any doubts about whether an article can be speedy deleted. This will allow you to keep contributing to the encyclopedia without creating unnecessary work for other editors.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - again apologies for barging in here. Just wanted to say something in regards to: "didn't seem interested in talking to any of the people who cautioned you". I am often accused of the same wiki-crime, so I am wondering if you may be interested in my perspective? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in. As someone who has lost countless articles to wp:CSDs, I always assumed that it is the admin's job to make sure that articles they are deleting are being deleted for the right reason. Is my assumption correct ? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In theory, yes. At least that's what *I* do - and willingly too because I like to catch those clueless patrollers and bend them over my knee. That said, even if some sloppy admins do not check what they are deleting, there's always Delrev where anything worth keeping is generally refunded without much fuss. More difficult of course if the deletion was on a community consensus at XfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, Kudpung. I am just wondering if there are statistics kept somewhere about the number of  "sloppy admins do not check what they are deleting"? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt it, . I can't see how it would be possible to extract suc a statistic. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A good place to start would be on my own talkpage :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

King's Norton Boys' School
Hi, In response to the message you sent me the only thing I have added is the school logo change, and a picture of the head for the news sake. If these are against the rules that you sent me I will gladly change the box to meet the required expectations of a schools Wikipedia Page. The whole page has been restored, is there a huge problem with adding texts of information. I understand the quotes but why can't there be other history, details about the curriculum. Also the motto box was already there, so why is it removed.

Thanks James Byford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja5by101 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi James. I don't think the photo is appropriate, Wikipedia is not a news site and such content gets quickly out of date. It would be good if you could restore the original formal school logo. I have also removed some text from the article but I can't remember if it was added by you. You are most welcome to continue to expand the article but do check out WP:WPSCH first. I am the coordinator there so if you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi yes sorry for the inconvenience. I currently go to the school and they have changed the logo to the one I have put on there. The reason why I put the news on there is because I was planning on updating it. I will remove the content. Also the school motto, is that aloud to be put back up? I am really really sorry. Thanks for Your Help

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja5by101 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't worry James, I have restored everything the way it should be. By all means add the motto to the motto section in the infobox, but preferably don't add any content to the article body before asking me first if you are not sure. Do check out WP:WPSCH/AG too - you'll soon get the hang of things and you'll soon be improving other articles. Make yourself a user page too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, I actually really appreciate things and I am sincerely sorry for the inconvience I have caused for you! I will add the motto but I shall not add anything else as it does cause an inconvenience and I can understand why the changes were made now and I do appreciate it!

Thank you so much again! James

Ja5by101 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

RAN
Actually, proxying Mr. Norton's new starts is permitted under terms of his original sanction, as I recall, so long as the person moving the start into mainspace accepts full responsibility for any possible copyright violation it contains. The logical and obvious solution for the betterment of the encyclopedia is to get rid of his punitive topic ban against direct new creations, of course, but as long as CCI is hot and bothered about 10 year old copyvios that nobody can or will ever fix, that doesn't seem too likely either. It's a stupid situation. Carrite (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bitey?
How about you try not to be, eh? Squinge (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not in the slightest. A bit direct maybe, but only with those who should know better. I don't bite newcomers. If you are trying to do maintenance tasks you are hardly a newcomer, so how about you reading the instructions before you do anything and perhaps also talk page headers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing NPP - its not a fucking new page! Squinge (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody, just nobody, uses language like that on my talk page and never has in 9 years. Read the instructions, in particular these too and do not come here again - under an circumstances. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the rude word, I withdraw it and I've struck it now. If you'd like to discuss the fact that you were wrong about it being a new page then I'll be happy to do so, or I'll never post here again (other than when mandatory) as you wish - just let me know. Squinge (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Help understanding a chart
The most recent vote concerning RfA at VPR included a chart, the first one at Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_115. Can you help me interpret the numbers? Have they been updated? - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, how are you doin'? Nice to see you. I'm still not quite sure which chart you mean, but all the graphs and tables are pretty accurate. The discussion was only 3 months ago so not much will have changed since. Reading through it, I still stand by all my comments which, summa sumarum, is that RfA is now as good as it's ever going to get, doesn't need any major changes except perhaps for more consequent removal of inapropriate questions, votes, and comments, but it's a start. RfA is actually doing a good job, demonstrated by one candidate whom I dragged kicking and screaming to the process and who then skipped through it like a lamb through a field of buttercups. If you are thinking of starting a new reform campaign, you'll probably have my support, but I think we need to give RfA time now for people to realise that it's no longer the horrible & brioken process that I and Wales suggested it was four years ago, and we need to make more publicity for it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh ... wasn't thinking of starting an RfA reform discussion, I've got something else in mind, a followup to the current RfC at VPR on user-rights. Not disputing that the chart is accurate ... I just don't know what the numbers mean. Here it is. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dank, do you by any chance mean any of the graphs or charts I uploaded from my Excel spreadsheet? I'm pretty sure I still have that spreadsheet if you want me to email it to you or something, just let me know. —  14:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on that, but I think if I can find out what the numbers above represent, I'm good. (I get what the middle row means.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

, most of these charts are created and maintained by. I don't find the figures particularly difficult to understand. Active admins are those who by some some silly criterion (not created by WereSpielChequers) that gives a totally false picture. IMO the actual number of truly active admins is about one tenth of that. Promotions is of course the actual number who passed an fA, and attrition is the total number lost through all kinds of desysoping. The projected number for 2014 was pretty accurate, in fact the actual number was 22. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it would be nice to have numbers that are based on a higher bar for activity ... do either of you happen to have numbers that reflect that? I'll ask WSC too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't but anyone who knows how to run a regex through the actual admin action logs can soon find out. I would suggest that a truly active admin should be based on the uses of the admin tools over the previous 60 days, plus the number of edits to ANI over the same period and then divide by 2. If the answer is 40 or greater, then I would consider them as active, used to be brilliant at pulling stats but he's gone AWOL as far as I can see. He did most of the stats for us at WP:RFA2011. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've asked WSC if he has numbers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

AfC
Hi. You removed me from Articles for Creation participants list because you thought I was too inexperienced. When do I know if I am experienced enough? When I reach 1000 edits? Thanks. William2001 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's something  else which  you  have misunderstood. If  you had read the page before putting  your name on  it and  my  comments on  your talk  page you  would have seen that  500 edits / 90 days are only  a starting  point  and that  more important is having  sufficient  experience that  can't  simply  be measured by  an edit  count. We are shorly  going  to  change the system and reviewers will  have to request  an admin  to include them on  the list  just  as we do  for PC Reviewer, Rollbacker, and AWB user. I  suggest  that  you might  like to  do  some less complex maintenance tasks until  the new system is up  and running and make a new application  then. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you. William2001 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Recreated
Hi just letting you know that I have recreated the pre-speedy tag. This is for purpose of demonstration for the discussion started here. Please know that until the discussion has ended I will not use the tag. If a consensus is not reached I will tag it for deletion myself - Thanks. Unit388 (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied on your  talk  page.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, you owe this user an apology. You already have 4 editors at criteria for speedy deletion who consider this deletion inappropriate. What's described at that page is not an ambiguous misrepresentation of policy (altho I can't speak for the template itself). Deleting a template so quickly while it's still under discussion at the appropriate page because you personally disagree is, in my opinion, a mis-use of administrator tools. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't  really  care for your opinion.  It  hasn't  gone unnoticed by  several  editors that  since you  arrived at  Wikipedia recently, you  appear to have a disproportionate interest  in  policing  the product  to  adding  content  to  its articles. You  are not  likely  to  be an admin  any  time soon so  if you  don't  understand our  policies, kindly  stay  out  of them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Something came in my mind
Is it possible some how to physically hide this page from new editors. I mean restricting new editors (who have less than 200 mainspace) to visit that page. I was thinking maybe WMF can do this but we need consensus first. What you say?  Jim Car ter  06:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . Well, theoretically  that  old feed ought  to  be deprecated. If  the new NPP  system has been in  operation  for a full  two  years (and if it  hasn't  it  will  be soon) the best  way  would be to  start  a major RfC to  get  it  deprecated. At  the moment, paradoxically, there are no  requirements of minimm experiemce to  patrol  new pages but  if the RfC for AfC goes through  in  a few days I  will  be starting  a similar one for NPP and that  will  be the one to  ask  the Foundation how they  can deny  access to  the curation  system for non privileged patrollers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I started drafting an RfC. Currently there are two ways to see the log of new pages. 1) Special:NewPages and 2) Special:NewPagesFeed. As there are no requirements of minimum experience so my proposal would be: an editor with a minimum of 500 mainspace edits, account 90 days old will be able to view those two pages. The old feed cannot be shut down because older browsers are not able to open Special:NewPagesFeed page as the curation system uses JavaScript. So my RfC will ask the Foundation to set a filter such that users with less experience than the requirement will not be able access that page. I will be setting the RfC by tomorrow. I will inform you before it goes live. Cheers,  Jim Car ter  09:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

.js page
Hello. When you need to put a template on a javascript page please put two slashes // before the template so that the browser does no try to interpret it as code. The slashed tell the interpreter what follows is a comment and not code. Remember when you edit another persons javascript page you are effecting the code ran on their browser, given the shear number of browsers and their idiosyncratic interpretation of javascript it can be problematic. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 07:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have no  idea what  you  are talking  about  except  that  I  know that  two  slashes signifies a comment  that  is not  part of the code. All  the js sripts in  my  vector.js page have been copied and pasted as is and I  have not  tried to modify them. If you  see something  there that  is not  correct  I  would appreciate a hint  rather than a vague message. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I may have communicated poorly, I was referring to this edit. To put it simply pages that end in .js have the potential to run code on the users browsers. While administrators are able to edit these pages they should only do so if they understand javascript enough to not screw things up. The tip about putting the slashes in front of the template was my 5 cent lesson on not messing up scripts.


 * When a javascript interpreter sees   it goes SYNTAX ERROR and depending on the browser various difficult to predict symptoms can arise. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 07:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry,, but I  still  have no  idea what  you  are talking  about. I  followed the link but  it  did not  provide any  clues that  I  understand either. Perhaps the Twinkle MfD script  is not  working  correctly  but  that  is nothing  to  do  with  me, and I'm  too  old to  be learning  javascript - I  am a common or garden admin, and nothing  about adminship (and believe me, I  know says sysops have to  be computer programmers to  get  the mop. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't have to learn javascript, but you are responsible for the edits you make with javascript tools like twinkle. Tools like twinkle save a lot of time but they aren't perfect. I cannot explain it any simpler than this: you made an edit to another users javascript page that would result in the script crashing on their browser, if you don't understand javascript then do not edit those pages.


 * As I said the only reason you were able to edit it at all is because you are an admin and admins have been given special access to other users javascript pages. If it is a problem with twinkle then you may wish to report a bug, stop using it, or audit the edits it makes for you. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 07:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , You are not being very helpful. Are you  suggesting  that  I  am in  someway  in  misuse of my  admin  tools for innocently  using  a broken Twinkle script available to  anyone that  I  had not  edited? If all  you  come here to  do  is to  continue to  stalk  my  work, I  suggest  you  start worrying about  your own admin attitude. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He actually is being helpful, Kudpung. Don't add non-code stuff to any .js page without sticking // in front of it, or else you can break the code and weird things can happen. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * {{tps}As I see it, Kudpung did not add non-code stuff to a .js page, he simply nominated a .js page for deletion using Twinkle and Twinkle edited the .js page to add stuff to it - that's hardly Kudpung's fault! People, try talking to each other and not past each other, eh? Squinge (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to learn javascript, but you are responsible for the edits you make with javascript tools like twinkle. Tools like twinkle save a lot of time but they aren't perfect. I cannot explain it any simpler than this: you made an edit to another users javascript page that would result in the script crashing on their browser, if you don't understand javascript then do not edit those pages.

As I said the only reason you were able to edit it at all is because you are an admin and admins have been given special access to other users javascript pages. If it is a problem with twinkle then you may wish to report a bug, stop using it, or audit the edits it makes for you}
 * Kudpung, I understand what chillium was attempting to relay to you from the start as a JavaScript capable person, and I can entirely see why you were missing what was attempting to be relayed. I can't see the deleted edit, but based on this discussion I have a fairly good understanding of the core issue here. I'm away from home until next Tuesday or Wednesday but will test and work on a fix then as I get home. —   16:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Kudpung I am not accusing you of anything much less you abusing your admin tools. The only reason I mentioned admin tools was that if you were not an admin you would have been prevented from editing that page. I understand and accept that you did not do it on purpose and it was the result of a tool you used. All I am asking is the you either do not change other users javascript pages or that you put // before your change. This is a reasonable request, not some sort of attack on you. I am asking this of you for technical reasons not because I think you have done something wrong. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 18:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless it is not my intent to carry on about this matter, it is minor. Please just use more care in the future when it comes to javascript pages or avoid them altogether. I have notified the maintainers of twinkle here: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Chillum, I hope you don't mind a comment from me here. It's not what was said, but the way it was said that's caused the aggravation here, I think. Perhaps something like "You might not be aware of it, but when you nominated X for deletion Twinkle did something wrong" rather than just the "It's your responsibility..." approach might have worked better? Squinge (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , admin got his mop before we had a code of conduct. He is even more brash and bitey than I am ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is really not clear why you felt the need to ping me while taking a swipe at me long after this issue(non-issue?) was settled. We did have a code of conduct back in 2008, as we do now. Let us both try to follow it please. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 20:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It just seems like a bit of well-meaning (and bridge-building) humour to me, and it made me smile ;-) I can appreciate the work you're both doing here, and it's so easy to misunderstand each other in this medium, which is really not the best method of communication there is. Squinge (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

CSD Criteria
What would a page like Aswin mukundan qualify for deletion under? I'm not sure. --Kges1901 (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both A7 and G11. Take a look at  the article now while it's still  there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Righto

 * better start earning my pay and start digging into some NPP. I still have the tool and full guidance. I think I've only ever done about 12, but there were no disasters generated as I recall. Keep a subtle eye out if you would be so kind. I assume you have the tools which give you a general overview of the day's or week's NPP output. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
 Jim Car  ter  10:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please can you check my NPP quality
Hi Kudpung. Dunno if you in bed, or busy, but if you have a minute, could you please give a brief glance at my NPP efforts so far? There are not many of them so It should not take long. I am very aware that there are some powerful tools available to the NPP'er, and I just want to know if my basic "feel" and methodology is acceptable. I am very aware of the responsibilities and potential to do inadvertant damage, so I just need some reassurance really. You can be as blunt as you wish. Regards Simon aka Irondome (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked at some of your  more recent  patrols. As usual  for most  new patrollers you  have a tendency to  over-tag. This is both a negative and a positive criticism: it  shows tha  you  are seeing  what  is wrong  with  the articles and it  shows that  you  know what  tags are available for use. Don't  tag relatively  harmless articles to soon, but  of course any  which  are blatantly  toxic must  be tagged as quickly  as possible for deletion  to rapidly  attract  the attention  of admins. If  you  are working  from  the back  of the queue remember that  some articles may  be months or even years old -  do  check  their histories very  carefully. Here ae some things that  you  might  like to  look at again  which  illustrate some of my  comments:


 * Tooker & Marsh tage for CSD A7 if you can't find sources
 * Nicholas Irving Overtagging - tagging the blatantly obvious. Good though because it caught the creator online
 * Hitler Stalingrad Speech older article. Probably not worth tagging at all. Seems to be factually accurate.
 * Under Electric Clouds Overtagging - tagging the blatantly obvious.
 * Be sure to make use of the 'message to  the creator' feature (this may  have less effect  on  older articles where the creator  was an SPA who  will probably  never return, but  do  it  nevertheless. You  are on  the right  track - keep up  the good work. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted and much appreciated. S. Irondome (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am noting some peculiar phenomena as I work from the back of the queue. A proposal for deletion on a long-dormant unworked on article will suddenly provoke a flurry of activity. The original creator suddenly beginning to add cites, or otherwise begin work on the article. This process can be measured in minutes. Odd, but rather encouraging. I am closely following Jim's NPP proposals and the debate being generated from that by the way. I shall be commenting. I feel it is the article creation, rather than the patrollers that may be the issue. Just initial thoughts. Will be revisiting the patrolled examples you highlighted above. I am becoming much lighter on the tagging. Regards as always. S Irondome (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , you are right  about  the flurries of activity -  it happens at  AfC too  when drafts get  tagged G13 for not  having  been  edited for 6 months. Nevetheless, check  that  the improvements are relevant and if the creator  has simply  fremoved maintenance tags (which  often happens) simply  restore them.
 * The problem with NPP  is most  certainly  the patrollers. I've been researching  and patrolling  the patrollers for 5 years. That said, although  I  favour a set of criteria of competency for users to  be allowed to  patrol   new pages, it  is too  soon to  be launching  that  proposal. I  wish  people wouldn't  jump  the gun but  that's also  what enthusiastic newcomers often do. They  may  not  be entirely  wrong  but  they  will  probably  not  be aware of what  is already  being  done. A substandard RfC can set  its own goals back years. Before anything  can be done with  NPP  it is essential  that  we get  consensus to  disband AfC and that could take at  least  another year. AfC has a terrible 'ownership' syndrome to  be conquered first. Yes, being  lighter on  the tagging, especially  when the faults in  the articles and stubs are evident  is a good idea. Keep  reading  WP:NPP over and over again, you'll always find you missed something. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, . I have completed overlooked the rather bizarre entity that is AfC, which I am now belatedly researching. I see nowhere where it actually fits into the grand scheme, if you will. Certainly a minimum skills set in patrollers can only be a positive, but I fully endorse your policy of gradualism. A premature RfC can be literally devastating for an otherwise good attempt to improve the project, and can set back months of intensive (and unpaid!) research and diplomacy to naught. I am beginning to notice instances of premature RfC's in my brief tenure that have gone horribly wrong. A poorly planned RfC seems to have a strange "souring" effect on the community, where the merits of the proposal are sublimated by an irritation that the case has not been competely or thouroughly presented. Much like a jury. This prejudice can last years in contributors to these tainted RfCs'. A similar thing to the old grudges issue in the RfA process. I am beginning to join the dots, and to begin to appreciate how bloody hard it is and how subtle and patient one has to be to actually get things done. Your encouragement on my modest patrolling efforts is greatly appreciated Chris. I hope we all can meet up in London some time and have a doubtless very interesting conversation. Be good to meet Harry too! Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I was going to start a new thread but this related to the above conversation. I agree that AfC has got too over-complicated and empirical evidence has now shown me that, far from being kinder and more compassionate as I had assumed, an AfC decline seems to be just as WP:BITEy for newbies as a PROD or CSD tag, though I'd be interested to see some statistics of how many "one decline" AfC drafts get abandoned and deleted per G13. I still review the odd AfC submission, but nowadays take each one as a cue to improve it and pass it.

Anyway, I was discussing with my other half why Wikipedia can still appear hostile to newcomers, and the consensus came back, once again, to badly called CSDs. I'm thinking specifically of The Mariposa Trust and Le QuecumBar, which were both quickly tagged for A7 (multiple times in the case of the Mariposa Trust), but where a simple search for the article's title on Google News returned more than one page of hits, easily allowing me to expand these articles with proper referencing. Would it be possible to change Twinkle (where the majority of CSDs get called from) to bring up a message along the lines of "STOP! Have you followed WP:BEFORE" as some sort of edit notice if a Google News or Books search on the article's title returns, say, more than 10 hits. The problem with the scenarios above is that looking from hindsight it seems poor from the newcomer's point of view to be slapped about, and when they read up on policies, conclude they shouldn't have been. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe the instructions at the top of WP:NPP could be changed to emphasise the importance of WP:BEFORE? I've lost count of the number of times I've caught pages which have been tagged, usually as A7, where a quick google search would either establish notability or at least make it iffy enough for the page to go for more scrutiny at WP:AFD instead. I also think there's a case for making pages ineligible for A7 until about 30-45 minutes have passed, to give creators enough time to add their content, though people opposing could probably point to pages like this though. Unless the page is obviously problematic, vandalism, attack pages etc, there's nothing to be lost by watchlisting the page and returning to it later to see if it has improved or not. Unfortunately, a lot of patrollers seem to be in a rush to get there first (I was guilty of those mistakes myself in my early days of NPP) when a little more digging would be more productive for all concerned. Valenciano (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I like that idea, and if there's traction it would be nice to make it into a guideline, I have a link to active A7s that I use all the time, hoping I can spot one that is salvageable. Of the two examples I gave, in both cases I was unsure if they would survive an AfD until I'd expanded up to about 7-8 sources, which was about half an hour's worth of work, and I know what I'm doing. I don't see anything wrong with taking some A7s to AfD, as they do not cause immediate harm to Wikipedia by existing, unlike attack pages and copyvios, a week's grace won't hurt us. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ., I spend several  hours every  week patrolling the patrollers and I've been doing this for around 4 years. There is so  much  poor tagging  nowadays that  I  only  bother now to  contact  the patrollers whom  I  really  have to  ask  to  stop patrolling and deven that  is far, far too  many. I  would hesitate to  say  that  the majority of patrollers arfe still working  from  the old feed. The New pages Feed and the Curation  tool  have been running  now for around two years, so I'm going  to  make a move soon  to  get  the old feed cdeprecated -  to  do  any  good anywhere on  Wikipedia, one needs to get  maintenance workers singing  from  the same page and applying  the same judgement  and criteria.
 * NPP is not  an article hospital  or the ARSollers should not be taking  the time to  improve or repair artic les. If  they  do the backlog will  be even longer than the current  30,000. Indeed, they  should do  a 'before' before tagging, but  if they  find refs they  should tell  the creator that  there are refs out  there so  would they  pleazse add them or have their article slated for deletion. What ever Wikipedia guidelines say, there are very  definitely  moments when we have to  be cruel  to  be kind, gthe most  important  thing is to  avoid being  blunt  and bitey  when we do  it.  I  could go  on  and on  and on about  NPP, but  I'm slowly  getting  totally  fed up  with  say ing  the same thing  to  20 users a week. This is the kind of thing  that  one day  will cause me to  retire for good from  Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW getting A7 delayed for 40 minutes won't  wash. It's been suggested before. People who  propose such  ideas may need somewhat  more experience with  patrolling  and won't  have noticed that that  the majority  of A7 are articles that  must  be deleted almost  as quickly  as spam or attach  pages -  or are you  really  going  to make a mockery  of the process by  allowing  : '' 'I am Johm Doe and me and Jim  are the   students  in  Grade 7 at  Mrs Bingo's class'  stand for an hour before hammering it -  and its creator - into  the floor? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that sentiment, I'm afraid. What do you mean by "hammering its creator into the floor"? The spam folder on my Gmail account has a grace period of 30 days, I don't think there's a single message I want to read, and that's just one account out of 425 million, that's about a hundred times as many articles on Wikipedia. Google does not generally bring Wikipedia articles to the top of search results until about a week, based on my tracking of pink cat, which despite being created nearly a month ago and having 12 hours linked off the main page via a DYK, does not appear in the first page of hits on a Google Search. These type of articles (which from my experience are more likely to be things like "Advanced Solutions inc is an Indian derivitives analysis company founded in January 2015" or "Bringers of Darkness is a doom metal band from Boise, Idaho") cause no legal harm to the WMF by existing, unlike attack pages or copyvios, and is unlikely to be linked from anywhere in the hour or two it may exist. So my evidence suggests that hastily deleting these types of articles has no obvious benefit, and should not be necessary. Why the rush? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Overall it's a fine line. We need new contributors and new articles and some of the creators of the latter do get scared away by over hasty tagging, but on the other hand sloppy articles about some "up and coming" band that the creator plays bongos for do create work which takes regulars' time away from adding content and it's often for the sake of an SPA that has no other interest in Wikipedia. There are two issues, firstly, there does need to be more guidance for those new here and submitting the first articles and AFC doesn't seem to have fulfilled that. That could come in the form of technical tweaks to give more advice and guidance when new users are submitting their first articles. Secondly, NPPatrollers need to understand that speedy deletion doesn't necessarily mean nominating pages as quickly as possible, it means that the article deletion process, which would normally take 7-10 days through PROD and AFD, can be done in a matter of hours. The latter could be done by changing the instructions at the top of NPP. You're right regarding the A7 issue and I did acknowledge that above, but I also believe that a lot of A7s could do with a bit more time. The "Danny X is the coolest kid in my class" ones can be nuked fairly quickly, but the ones like "company X is a famous travel agent in India" can be given a little more time just in case there are offline sources covering the company's services or products. Valenciano (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . . Valenciano, have you lived and worked in  India? I have. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . . With all  due respect, what  it boils down to  is that  neither of you  have properly  read what  I  wrote above. That  will  of course teach  me not  to  TL;DR... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did read what you wrote, but I simply do not agree with your views. There is no reason to disparage anyone with terms such as "trash" or "trolls". I think our conversation is done, and I fear we will continue to lose editors, which is a shame. Happy editing. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I fail to  understand the value pf providing  links to  deleted G3s when we're disscussing  A7. I  have aqccess to  deleted material, and take it  from  me, I've been here long  enoigh  to  know the difference between a blatant  vandalism and an A7 for an article that  stands absolutely  no  chance whatsoever and should be flagged for deketion as soon  as a patroller sees it. It  doesn't  matter if the creator might  have stayed around to  create  a proper article about  something  else (let's not  kid ourselves, the VAST majority  of them don't), what  NPP  is for is to  do  a triage of articles, not  to  read the creator's mind or assess hi/her position and maturity in RL. We  are an encyclopedioa, not  a psychological  counselling  service (unless one is here  for the pure social  networking, but  I  am not -  I'm here to  build an encyclopedia and keep  it  free of trash and trolls, and actually I'm very  much  an inclusionist). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I read everything you wrote and agree with some, but not all of it, I don't get your point about India. However, there does remain the issue of editor retention and the need to have new blood coming through. You don't throw the baby out with the trash and sometimes that is what NP patrollers are doing, as yes there will be cases, especially in the A7 area, where naive newbies will have posted a worthy topic but will have failed to reference it adequately. Incidentally, if the redlink you are speaking about is Karim Badie, that was an A7 when I posted it as an example and was indeed deleted as such. The fact that a subsequent version was deleted as G3 doesn't change that or the fact that I specifically highlighted that as an example of an article which didn't deserve to stick around. Valenciano (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think things have got a little at cross-purposes. The Mariposa Trust was a good result. Have a look at the creator's talk page. Couple of cliched bitey twinkle tags, a few really bitey block warnings, I go in, add 6 reliable sources, everyone says "oops, sorry" and things calm down. That's the stuff I'm talking about. I maybe need to get some metrics of "CSD saves", but it can't be that many (I would guess about 70% - 90% of A7s are generally impossible for me to salvage) and most I do salvage go to BLP prod or AfD. Certainly there were about 20 articles tagged for A7 this morning that I thought "clear cut A7; bin now". But, going back to my original point that seems to have been lost a bit, a script would almost certainly (I haven't checked) report 0 or few news hits for all of those, giving the tagger a "clean" bill of health to CSD it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The first tagging was A7. It was blatant trolling and could have been tagged as hoax/vandalism, or even with just a tiny stretch of imagination as an attack page. Some of us admins would accord 2% AGF and delete it as a test page to save the creator's face -in which case however an L1 warning about creating inappropriate pages might be conceivable.

The second tagging (on recreation) of the same content by as G3 was perfectly accurate. In both instances the tagging took place within 5 mins or so of creation - and most rightly so - even a raw newbie patroller would know (well, mostly) that you are not going to make a regular Wikipedian out of that author. Sorry to continue to be a damp squid for anyone advocating a delay for tagging of articles that are pure nonense.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As I'm not an admin I can't view the page in question, so will take your word for it, but as I cited that as a specific example of a page which *should* be quickly nuked I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. No one is advocating a delay for nonsense articles. I nominate quite a few myself as soon as I see them and those should quickly go, but there are pages on other topics such as companies which are less obviously problematic, could theoretically have coverage not immediately obvious from google searches like offline sources or through paywalls and articles like that don't need to bite the dust so quickly. How to gain a little more time for those is one of several issues I see at NPP along with the WP:BEFORE issue of people not even bothering to check for sources. We do need a wider discussion on it. Valenciano (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

All new articles are referenced and cached by Google within seconds of being posted on Wikipedia - that's part of the deal for Google's $1 mio donation, so that Internet searches always return Wikipedia articles at the top of the list. Your Gmail content is not referenced at all so I fail totally to see what it has to do with our problems at NPP. Fortunately, when I got the Draft namespace (yes, another of my proposals) created, we stipulated hat drafts will be 'no index, no follow'. That's what should have been included for new pages at NPP until they had been 'patrolled' but somehow the devs failed to do it and now it's an uphil battle to get it done in retro. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we're not talking about the same articles. Anyway, WP articles used to be the top Google search hit, but recently I've found that's not the case so much, they take a while to catch up. pink cat isn't on the first page. The Mariposa Trust is hit #6. I created Tape op (the term, not the magazine) yesterday and while the magazine might drown that out, I've just been through five pages of Google and not found it. So something has changed somewhere, but as Google never release pagerank algorithms, who knows. Maybe it now takes page views into the equation; obviously older articles will have had lots of views anyway because of their prominence, so will self-weight towards the top. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ., The Mariposa Trust was tagged A7 by in less than a minute of its creation. The patroller, around since 2007 with  an EC of 13,569, should have known better than to tag so quickly  and should have applied other maintenance tags and made use of the message feature. Contrary to  policy, the creator  almost instantly removed the CSD themself and within less than a minute the tag was restored, again by   - this should have been an alert to  the patroller who  seems to  patrol  with  a vengeance. However, the first  and second pages of Google did not return any RS, and that's all  a patroller is expected to as a Before, apart from  checking  for COPYVIO. I  would therefore probably  have tagged that page for A7 but  certainly  not  within  less than 20 minutes. I  click  to  add such  pages to  my  watchlist  and go back  to  then after 20 minutes or so. I  will  soon  find out  later if it  is still  a blue link and if it  is I  will  look  to  see why.


 * The fiasco of a discussion  on  the creator’s talk  page starts of being  rather bitey and only  after a lot  of kerfuffle does it  start  to  get  any nicer. Admittedly  it pays to remember that  Charliallpress is not  here to  become a regular  Wikipedia contributor  but  nevertheless their article was neither a hoax/vandalism or otherwise toxic and they  deserved to  be treated in  GF. Lessons to  be learned all  round (except  who I recently [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MelanieN|turned into an admin|| and will be one of the best  we have).


 * This article and its creator are classic examples of the Foundation’s mammoth failure after all  these years to address the lack  of a proper landing page for new users - I  believe this to  be a WMF mandate even more than the creation  of the new page feed and it  curation thing. Indeed,development  of the Article Creation  Flow began but  when things cooled down it  was swept  under the carpet.  Follow up  talks every  6 - 12 months have received vague promises but still  nothing  has been done. While the WMF will refuse, even with  overwhelming  community  consensus, to introduce any mechanism to restrict creation  of articles to  auto confirmed users, there is nothing  in  that  policy  that  says we cannot  force all  new users to build their first  article through the Article Wizard -  and that’s what IMO  should be done.  What  needs to  be done is:
 * Significantly improve the quality  of NPP and either introduce a technically  imposed qualification for doing  it or significantly  step  up  the control of those who  patrol.
 * Create a proper landing page for new users, trolls, spammers, SPa, and who ever else, so  that  they  have a clearer idea of what  an encyclopedia is.
 * Force at least  all  non  confirmed users to  choose to create  either through the Article Wizard or to create a Draft  first for submission  to  AfC (bearing  in  mind that  there is a growing  movement  to migrate AfC to  NPP and not  without  reason.
 * Maintain the new quality of voting  at  RfA and continue our campaign to  get  users of the right  calibre to run for adminship.
 * Get regular editors more involved in the RfA voting process.
 * Make it much quicker and easier to desysop the admins (probably  pre-2007 promotions) who have a pattern of abusing  their mandate.
 * None of the above is impossible and I can't  see anyone seriously  disagreeing. Just needs aforethought and some careful planning. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thai user
Hi Kudpung, not sure how much Thai you speak, but we have a bit of an issue with a Thai user. is uploading a lot of Thai football club logos, which in and of itself is not the issue, if they were properly licenced. The user is claiming they are the creator, and copyright holder, which is obviously not the case, having a look at their talk page, you can see the mass amount of messages, warnings, etc. that he/she has received. There was even a not so in depth discussion at AN/I a year ago which, really only resulted in a short message by another user. I dropped the last one, with a stop sign (presuming English as not a first language, visuals are good), saying don't upload anything without the correct licence. I am sure the actual message got lost in translation, but the concept is understood, based on this edit on my talk page. If you do know any Thai (or someone who does), could you explain the concept of fair use logos to this user? Really we can save a lot of time, work, and hassle if they just upload the images as fair use, but I personally cannot explain that in a way they will understand (my rather stern warning was really just to get them to stop uploading temporarily, lest they actually get blocked). Ta, --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also you seem to have a fan - ... --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . sorry to  disappoint  you  but while I  speak  relatively  fluent  Thai, and can read it  just  a tiny  bit, it's worlds away  from  discussing  anything  in  that  language with  anyone on Wikipedia.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks anyway Kudpung. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Me?
Is Are you referring me among those unhelpful editors?  Jim Car ter  15:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , It's not 'Is you' it's 'Are you', and I'm referring to users who have been around since long before you joined Wikipedia, and who  have a particularly  nasty  disposition -  remember some of us have been around here for 10 years or more. Stop being so paranoid. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh! I started this thread with "Is" as I wanted to say something else but later changed it but forgot to change that word. Don't count my grammatical mistakes, I make plenty; though I'm able to write two GAs and a FL. I'm asking you because I'm a bit confused as your comment there didn't made it clear to whom you're referring. Best,  Jim Car ter  16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well,, you need to  follow that  thread some  more, because  has been doling  some math. Wikipedia rules forbid me from  naming  manes or even making comments through  which  such  individuals can be instantly  identified. It's a very  'knife-edge' thing where some are concerned who  are bent  on  destroying  the editing  pleasure of other volunteers. Some of them are now on a very short leash and will probably be banned before the year's out, and others will follow soon - some admins have been been oiling  the mechanisms of their  block buttons. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI Echo is not working for some reason, I haven't got your last two pings. I've identified two of the editor you are referring. I agree, they are making the environment at WER toxic but as I said on my talk page few days ago, if you really care for the project then I think you should take the responsibility of the project, it maybe time consuming but it will be a benefit for the project, for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia will not profit if one of the most prolific member of WER leaves it just because of few toxic substances. I hope most of the other WER members will agree with me. Cheers,  Jim  Car  ter  16:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal
Hi Kudpung; I saw your message and I wish to withdraw from RFA. How do I do so? --The one that forgot (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's about 2:20am in Kudpung's house, so I will help out: You can strike your nom statement, then add a comment that you want to withdraw below it. Any familiar editor can close it from there.  I will add that I'm glad it got to run for a while, you learn from it.  No one was negative, even those of us that opposed.  You just have to give it time.  The lowest number of edits that I've seen pass recently was around 6,000, a candidate I nominated, and who struggled to pass.  I think lower is possible, but if I have to put a number on it, 5,000 is kind of a minimum safe level. Of course, the choice is yours, this is just my advice. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Typo
Hi Kudpung,

I don't want to look like a stickler, but I must say that "WITHDEAWAL" in all caps made me laugh. I normally wouldn't say anything about a typo, but considering the prominence of your comment, you might want to consider fixing it. Thanks, -- Biblio worm  23:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, did you close it then? BTW, it's 6 a.m. here and I've just got  up  for another 8-hour  stint n at  Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I !voted on the RfA, so I don't feel that it would be right for me to close it. -- Biblio worm  23:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey Kudpung: Thanks for all of the advice and help during the RFA. Your words of wisdom were very helpful and I appreciate the nomination offer in the future. Yeah, I'll branch out from here, probably doing more content creation and possibly NPP work. Again, thanks! --The one that forgot (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

AFC script rfc
I don't think it's nice to close those things early. I was planning to make a comment but thought I had a while to get around to writing it. It wouldn't have changed the outcome but maybe it could have gotten people a little more aware. AFC is broken and protecting that script isn't going to help noticably. I've put a few articles through it but it's gotten so bureaucratically intolerable that I've decided to give up on it, and submit any new articles through the relevant wikiprojects or just ask registered editors to make them for me. That said, reverting the closure probably isn't worthwhile. The real necessary fix is just never going to happen. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , your comment wouldn't have changed anything. There were even more users with  very  few edits who  entered their names on  the list  today  and that's what  the RfA was about, and not  about  any  alternative methods of controlling  RfC or its future. However, stay  tuned, because before the year is out there will  be a major RfC to  disband AfC and use something  else quite different instead -  we're working  on it  right  now. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think RFC's are supposed to be like elections, whose main purpose is to choose an outcome. They're also supposed to record the different viewpoints that exist on the topic, which is why the early closure is annoying even if the outcome has made itself clear.  I'd be interested to hear what you plan to replace AFC with, but I don't think it can change the currently perverse incentives around new articles, so I'm pessimistic.  50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The early closure was perfectly  in  line with  the proposal  for an emergency  measure. I  have launched a lot  of RfCs -  they  always get consensus. You will  find out  in  due time what  we are planning to  replace AfC with, and you'll  probably  like it. In  the meantime I  strongly urge you  to  sign up for an account - you  voice would be more likely  to  be heard, we won't  ask  embarassing questions as to  what  your previous account was, and we won't need to know that you live on  a block between Broadway and Pacific. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The "emergency" was bogus as far as I could tell. If the afc replacement is being discussed on-wiki someplace I'd be interested in a link (a quick summary would be preferable but a pointer is ok).  One of my rfc comments was intended to be that rather than N edits, people processing afc's should be asked to submit an article of their own and get it through the process so they'll know what it's like from the other direction.  50.0.205.75 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but  I  will  not  entertain  that  kind of criticism, and certainly  not  from  an anonymous user with  such  a deep  knowledge after only  one month  of editing. No, the final  solution  for AfC is not  being  discussed anywhere that  you  can see it. For that  you  would email  enabled, and you  can't. I think we have finished here now. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure which criticism you mean: if about the "emergency", a couple of editors in the RFC made similar comments to mine, and there was certainly no visible consensus that an emergency exists. I see one of them (K7L) has complained about this at WP:ANI and suggested the closure should be reverted.  OTOH if you felt the page needed urgent protection, starting an RFC just for that was probably overkill, as a talkpage discussion (or running it through RFPP) would have been enough.  (I don't mind the list page being protected, though I think the talk page should stay unprotected unless it's under significant vandalism/disruption).  I'm rather more uncomfortable with the apparently secret, off-wiki development of your contemplated AFC replacement.  That comes across as cabal-ish and it's more consistent with Wikipedia principles to discuss such things on-wiki. Anyway, I'm about to endorse K7L's suggestion to re-open the RFC.  It's ok with me if WPAFC/P stays protected while the rest of the RFC runs, per my comment that RFC wasn't required to do the protection in the first place. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have told you before, I do not like your attitude. You may get more attention from me if you were to express youself in a more collegial and collaborative manner. Is it somthing typical of people who refuse to sign up for an account and be part of the community? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what attitude you mean: if you've got a substantive criticism I'm happy to listen. I prefer editing without an account under the principle of "comment on the edits not the editor".  I posted a comment at the ANI and a third editor did as well, so hopefully someone will re-open the RFC.  You closed it while WP:INVOLVED under a claim of "emergency" that several people (at minimum: DGG, Leaky Cauldron, and myself) have disagreed with and nobody has made any sensible arguments for.  You also tried to limit the scope of comments in the RFC itself (against the spirit of RFC's, which is to let interested parties present their views) and several editors pushed back against that too (your preferences don't override theirs). I understand the godawful burden and dilemmas facing AFC reviewers; I have thoughts and experiences to share from the contributor side in the interest of helping the process, while you engage in off-wiki coordination about AFC and hassle people here about accounts (which is especially weird because the whole point of AFC is to help people contribute without using accounts) and close discussions that you are involved in while they are still in progress.  So I think you are the one being uncollegial and uncollaborative.  I respect the good intentions and diligent efforts of the AFC wikiproject but it seems to me that despite its intentions, it has made things worse (more bureaucratic) rather than better.  Therefore, I hope you can understand that hearing that the same people are working on a secret plan to replace the already-broken AFC sets off a certain amount of cynicism in me.  If there's an open discussion about what you want to do about AFC, I'll look at it with interest and possibly comment. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I, as well, do not see any particularly disconcerting "attitude" from the IP. All I see is an attempt, at least on his/her part, to discuss the matter at hand. Kudpung is obviously WP:INVOLVED and there was no emergency to close the RfC while discussion was ongoing. Admittedly, in hindsight, I don't think there was a need for an RfC at all. If all that was necessary was for the AFC Helper script "Participants" page to be protected, then that could have been done under the pretence of WP:BOLD. Kudpung, you yourself have noted the fact inexperienced editors are signing up, even if they don't read or meet the proper requirements. Fully protecting the page was a bold, but easily justified move, and would definitely help the encyclopedia. Therefore, an RfC wasn't needed just to accomplish this task. However, the RfC's scope was broadened to a discussion about fixing AfC on the whole. Many agree that AfC is broken, and an RfC is a decent and transparent place to discuss such matters. For these reasons, I agree that the closing of the RfC was premature and best. Furthermore, the terms were "30 days or until a clear consensus is reached." 30% opposition is not a clear consensus and the 30 days definitely weren't up.


 * In addition to my above comment, I'd like to note that Kudpung's behaviour above borders on the side of incivilty and bitiness. "your comment wouldn't have changed anything" - perhaps, but in discussions, everyone's comments are at least to be taken into consideration. That's what discussions are for. "be part of the community" - by virtue of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, just about everyone who can work collaboratively and contribute positively (as this IP has been doing, as far as I can see) is welcomed to this community. "collegial and collaborative manner" - not sure what you see as collegial and collaborative, but the IP's points are reasonable, and should be considered. He/she has not engaged in any personal attacks, and his/her very attempts to come to this talkpage and discuss this matter shows their willingness to collaborate.


 * Finally, and somewhat paradoxically, I, too, would like to encourage you,, to get an account. You would avoid such comments as those above, it increases accountability and your contribution history won't be deleted if you move from one IP to another if there ever was a need for that. --ceradon (<font color="#036">talk  • <font color="#036">contribs ) 23:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of closure review: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN
Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  14:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Full prot @ List of countries by Internet connection speeds
Hi. Do you think semi-protection would be sufficient here? If not, would you mind reviewing the requests placed on the talk page? Rjd0060 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * HI . Having reviewed the entire edit  history  before protecting  it, I  feel  that  a high  level  of protection  is required. I  will  leave the decision  to  you but  you  may  want  to  watch  the article for a while and see what  happens if you  change the protection. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you justify the reason? I don't see anything but anonymous users editing in the recent history.  Thus, semi would be sufficient, I believe.  Rjd0060 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * see my message above:  'I  will  leave the decision  to  you' . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Saw it. Am I not allowed to ask for justification? Anyhow, disregard based on below. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the discussion here, but I've already lowered the protection level. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MSGJ! Rjd0060 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Bot
If I wanted to create a bot for my account if you know what I mean, how would I do this? Regards <font size="3" style="color:blue" face="arial"><font style="color:green">Tea <font style="color:red">Lover <font style="color:blue">1996   Lets talk about it  00:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. If you make a bot it will need to be submitted to the WP:BAG for approval before it =can be used. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean 2 things (could you please answer in the way I have asked them thanks)
 * If I wanted to create a bot like many other bots on Wikipedia, that would be semi-automated, what would I need to do
 * Any tips or pointers on what to do?
 * Thanks <font size="3" style="color:blue" face="arial"><font style="color:green">Tea <font style="color:red">Lover <font style="color:blue">1996   Lets talk about it  02:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not being  very  helpful, it's lke sayingh  to  me:  "I want  to  go  somewhere, can you  tell  me how to  get  there."   besides which I  don't  know anything  about  bots as I  have already  said before. You must ask someone else, but  you  must be prepared to  explain  exacrly  what  it  is you  want  to  do, and chances are there is already  a bot  that  does it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Question
Dear Kudpung: This report:  about one of our AfC participants seems to indicate that the user has no live edits, yet he/she appears to have contributions listed, and in fact has left a message (undeleted) on my talk page about a page which was accidentally submitted when I fixed an error which was hiding the submit template. Am I missing something, or are these statistics messed up somehow? When I check the edit counter on my own contributions it works fine. I don't want to jump to conclusions about the low edit count.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * HI . I'm  really the wrong person to ask  about this sort of thing -  in  fact  AfC is in  such  a mess I  can't  wait for the day  whan it  will  be disbanded and replaced with  something  better or simply  merged to  NPP. AFAICS   has 17,778 mainspace edits. The other counter (the original  Supercount tool) is not  working. If there are problems with  the counters, you'll have to  bully  their  devs because issues with  them have been going on  now for far  too  long. Everything  worked fine before the migration  to  labs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. (And thanks for the ping, ). It's interesting, that when  ran that report she got the results that she did, but when you click the link on my talk page, you get THIS REPORT. Interesting.  Not sure where Kudpung's numbers come from. Sorry to inject myself in the conversation, but I was curious as to if I was doing something incorrectly? Onel5969 (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Onel5969, I started looking into this because I wondered why I was notified about a page I didn't remember submitting. I wondered if the templates had been left manually.  I checked your contributions to see if you were a regular reviewer, and was startled to be given impossible results by  the edit counter.  No, you didn't do anything wrong; the mistake was on my end; the original editor had a format error which hid the submit template, and when I fixed the error the template was revealed and the page was submitted, which I should have noticed, but didn't.  It wasn't ready to be submitted, and you were right to decline it, which is why I didn't ping you.  Anyway, Kudpung, sorry to have bothered you about this. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , : Stats are here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Name
Hi mate, you remember Zafiraman? Well that's me, I changed my username as per Change Username you can find my request and its approval in the archive (I'm guessing so but not 100% sure) <font size="3" style="color:blue" face="arial"><font style="color:green">Tea <font style="color:red">Lover <font style="color:blue">1996   Lets talk about it  02:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection
If an article is permanently semi-protected, will it ever be unprotected? <font size="3" style="color:blue" face="arial"><font style="color:green">Tea <font style="color:red">Lover <font style="color:blue">1996   Lets talk about it  06:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone can make a strong enough argument for it to be unprotecerd. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RFA nomination
I am here to request that you nominate me for RFA. I think I have the necessary experience and I wanted to see if you thought I would have a good chance of passing. Everymorning  talk  21:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just want to remind Kudpung that you ran before, in case he forgot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry , but  I  do  not  think you  are ready  for adminship  yet. It's not  neccessarily  a case of how many  edits you have, how many  redirects you made, or how many  short articles you  created, or the experience you have. You  need to  prove that  that experience demonstrates a good knowledge of policies, guidelines, and procedures that  admins are expected to  have, and also  importantly, their sense of judgement  in  certain  situations. A new thorough review of your editing  history  leaves me with  the impression  that  you are still  not  sufficiently  well  versed in  several  aspects of the maintenance of the encyclopedia. Admittedly  you  have achieved a high  edit count, but  IMO this only  demonstrates again  (at  least  to  me) that you are too eager to  be an admin and that is is what  you  have been working towards -  wanting  to  be an admin, not  to  mention  your  attempt at  ACE2013,   should never be the main  reason  for joining  Wikipedia. Having  also  once exposed your age will  cause some editors to  oppose on  the grounds that  you  may  be too  young, we have no  minimum age rule for adminship but  voters are entitled to  their opinion and that  is a valid criterion  for those who  do  so. I  suggest  you  keep  up the good work  you  are doing but  that  perhaps you  should be spending  more time on  your  school  work, because I  certainly  know how much  time one has to  devote to  Wikipedia to  rack up the number  and kind  of edits you  are doing and it  is extremely rare for anyone to  do  so many  monthly  edits whatever they  are and whoever they  are. I  reiterate my  comment here, and the other advice I  provided off-Wiki, which is still very much my opinion today. Give it time -  I didn't become an admin until  I  was 61 ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)]


 * I consider 61 to be precociously young to be taking on the enormous burdens of the bit. As a believer in the Kabalistic theories of Reincarnation I can only assume you mean you have achieved 61 returns to this material valley of darkness. I would suggest one requires at least 100 before beginning to grasp the mysteries of the human soul, especially that of the Troll or WP:Vandal. I am suprised that one so young passed their RfA in the first place. The ancient Irondome (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the useful tip, I make articles nearly everyday now so I should get to 50 soon. So again, thanks, and peace. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:45 February 27, 2015