User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2018

Matt Patricia
Good morning. I would like to include some links and mention that Patricia was considered for the Lions HC job. Danthemandtm (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, please see Edit requests and follow the instructions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Promo-stuff
I think is looking at an Indef for promo-spam.How do you feel? Winged Blades Godric 10:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I had considered it. Next time though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm..The last block was somewhat old:) Winged Blades [[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|Godric ]] 10:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And, some eyes may be warranted at Rasna Pavithran.Cont. removal of G11 tags.Further, any ideas about Marilyn Barnett? Winged Blades Godric 10:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey -  I'm  on  holiday!
 * Err..Did not know about it! Have a good time:) Winged Blades Godric 11:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Rasna Pavithran is a classic example of a page that cannot be BLPPRODed, but certainly is not a candidate for CSD. It's one of those rare cases where 'Move to draft' is perfectly apt. For Marilyn Barnett, read this and you'll know what to do (I assume you are a New Page Reviewer), and if you're still not sure you can ask a question at WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm..this seems to imply that I am a NPR and I was one of the most active reviewers at a certain time-span, cumulating around 800 reviews, before taking a break:)I was interested in your opinion about the notab. of the subject, given that many sources were spam. Winged Blades Godric 13:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought perhaps you might be a reviewer, but I couldn't be sure - especially as you were asking my opinion. Well, without going through all the refs, which I won't - that's why we now have nearly 600 reviewers since I created the user right - it has all the blatant hallmarks of UPE, and the creator,, already has one article deleted for advertising. The action which is the choice of the reviewer, can be gleaned from reading WP:NPP. That said, it will probably end up at COIN. As an admin, my intervention would be unilateral and more severe, but I deliberately leave articles like this to the reviewers so that they learn something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

LGBTech page deletion
Hi, Following your message about the deletion of the page LGBTech, I wanted to mention that I had no idea about these limitations. Would it have a negative consequence writing a term about LGBTech in the future? Grembek (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, despite being extremely suopportive of LGBT, I don't think there is a possibility of of us accepting an article about that group any time soon due to notability requirements, eve if the blatant advertising were removed. Also, you as founder would not be able to write it -see WP:COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ubagroup.ci
Regarding Ubagroup.ci you say "Sorry, but this is not CSD A7. This just makes double work for accredited reviewers. I suggest you read WP:NPR and the tutorial and apply for the reviewer right." I have had the right for some years now. It was my understanding that the article was about a non-notable website, my apologies if I was incorrect but I don't think I deserve such a curt admonishment considering my 10 years worth of tireless contributions and being number 29 here Database reports/Top new article reviewers. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article had just one single word on it that was nor even related to the title. Let's just put it down to a mouse miss-click then. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year and File Move
Hi Kudpung, Happy New Year. Can you please move/rename the newly uploaded image to  Change the 34 to 45. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename request filed. Winged Blades Godric 15:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. It may also be helpful to know that you can make a link to a file by prepending a colon as follows: File:Example.jpg, File:Example.jpg . 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 15:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Trout
For this CSD tag - on the studio that recorded multiple award-winning albums such as Adele's 21, and is a Grade II listed building - is .... unfortunate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and TV programmes such as The Blue Planet! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , this article sounds like something you could help expand to a good DYK, particularly if you've got the sources for the building's history as a 19th century chapel. (I'll have a hunt around in The London Encyclopedia and the Survey of London and see what I can dig up). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It indeed looks to be a good topic but I've started a bunch of those myself recently and was planning to work on Hanging Sword Alley first, before its DYK window closes. I'll put the Angel Studio on my watchlist and chip in when inspiration strikes. Andrew D. (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Bit unconventional to give a trout for doing something that is not silly. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * is unconventional! This is what happens when people don't look at an article's history before throwing around with wet fish. If I were a slightly more radical admin, from the state the article was in when I tagged it, I would have unilaterally delete it as many another admin would. The whole thing was also oozing and dripping with the slimiest of adspeak I was of two minds to block the creator - but then, I'm not radical, am I? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd be violating policy in spades - WP:ATD (that's policy, remember) says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". So I rejected your request for unilateral deletion without discussion and improved the page instead. However, I still assumed good faith you didn't do it via incompetence or malice, but simply weren't as familiar with the Angel area of London and the insides of recording studios as I am, hence the seafood. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From the revision tagged by Kudpung: "majestic...perfect fusion...most up to date technology...the very best modern control room...the latest recording technology...magnificent...an impressive range of international and award-winning music makers...world famous...where beautiful music truly comes alive". Can I go rinse my brain out now? Lots of people including one member of Arbcom, will delete articles for stuff like this. No trout earned IMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am also quite unconventional (being the only quixotic potato on this planet) but I'm not gonna trout janitors for doing their job. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Trout is delicious, so the best thing to do is to accept the gift and eat it. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Annett Fleischer
Hi, my phone was not responding properly and I accidentally reverted your edit to Annett Fleischer ‎but reverted it as soon as I realised my mistake. Sorry about the trouble. Ivec os (t) 07:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

thank for your precious help
good morning from Coreca, I write to you to say goodbye and know how you are today, besides to thank you for your timely and thoughtful intervention. I apologize if I could seem silly in creating a page so quickly using various methods including the translator. Unfortunately, hurrying is often a bad counselor. I therefore ask you to forgive me, and if you want to become my helper for new voices or that I would like to translate into English. I would like to entrust you with two articles to expand and improve, take the time you need, but I would like to expand Sabrina Ferilli and Katrin Heß, just and no more than 10 minutes of your precious time, then if I can do something for you in Italian and its dialects I will be happy to do it, even more, very honored! sure of your answer I thank you in advance of what you did, do and do for me. a greeting from Coreca.--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy delete flag of Eshet Tourist Services Ltd
Hi, I was unable to respond to your speedy deletion nomination tag before the Eshet Tourist Services Ltd article I posted was shot down (given that this seems to have happened within minutes of the flagginf). I noted you flagged it as "promotional". I want to make it clear out front that I am not, and never have been, employed or in any business relationship with Eshet Tours and that my only contact with them has been as a reasonably (one time) satisfied customer who took the time to look into their mode of operations. Furthermore, I thought I adopted carefully neutral phrasing throughout the article, and also provided sources and pointed out the controversy surrounding the manner in which Eshet Tours secured a near monopoly on Israel's public sector vacations.

I therefore do not understand why you flagged down this article as promotional. I would appreciate your feedback and any advice on how this article, in which I invested a considerable chunk of my private time, can be made acceptable.

I understand that the issue of notability might also apply to this type of article. However, Eshet Tours is not a "garage company" - it is one the largest tourist companies in Israel with hundreds of employees and hundreds of thousands of customers per year which has been independently covered by the media in the references I provided. Furthermore, the field it is active in - tourism to Israel, is one that is of major interest and activity of millions of Wiki users, Jewish and otherwise. Knowledge of the market forces affecting this field (such as the aforementioned monopoly over Israeli public sector tourism) seems to me to be of interest to these users.

Looking forward to your feedback,

Yboxman (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . It was actually deleted by . Both of us being admins, it was the right thing to do at the time, but having listened to your explanation, I would need Ritchie's consent to restore it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Shelia Shribman
Thanks for reviewing my article. In response to your comment on the review, I did not find any sources to determine where and when she was born while writing this article. The only closest source that I can find is this one which says "She has spent the past 60 years in the Wirral, London, Northamptonshire and Dartmouth". --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right,, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. Thanks anyway for looking. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

COIN
Per your advice on my candidate poll, I have watchlisted WP:COIN and intend to help out a bit over there in order to gain a more thorough understanding of promotional/paid editing. Any advice/feedback would be much appreciated. I have noticed however that the inability to view deleted articles is even more of a hindrance over there than it is at NPP, as I can't get a full picture of pretty much any of the discussions, as most of them involve a mix of existing and deleted pages. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, you can console yourself with the thought that none of us admins had access to deleted pages before we were granted the bit. There are plenty of other tasks that  need doing  though and through which you will gain the necessary experience. The main  thing  is to  get  that  experience without  out it  looking as if you  need it because you  want  to  be an admin rather than being called to duty as an admin because you  simply  have accumulated the experience - which  is how most of the successful (and busy) admins ended up at RfA. The main hurdle is the  one particular aspect  of adminship  that  one either naturally  has or doesn't: a keen sense of judgement. And there are no metrics for that. . You  don't  need the bit  for all that, but it can be demonstrated by  not  particular being  noticed until your nominator makes the voters aware of it  at  your  RfA. The main  thing  at  SPI and COIN is detecting cases, gathering the background and making the reports. Most of the editors  in those places are not  admins. The admins are the ones who make the final call based on the evidence. As your work  at  NPP  is very  much  in  your  favour, there's an election coming up soon for  official  coords, see how you  fare in  that, and if you  are elected, just keep doing  it, but  certainly diversify and while keeping  your own number of patrolls up (it's still only 2,229 as far as I can see) and although  you  have a respectable number of edits, try  to  maintain your content work at a bit  higher than 32%. (34% of your  edits  are (semi-)automated). That  said, Miracle of Sound which  you  wrote  and got  to  GA almost  single-handedly is really impressive (93.8%) but  sadly  the voters at  RfA have a tendency  not  to  notice those things. In my  day one had to do something  like Malvern  to get a GA (634 edits but  still only 60% of the content), and in those days a review was as tough as for a FA. I'm  sure you are aware, RfA can be a brutal place for  7  days. Not many good faith candidates fail these days, but occasionally they do, and those are the RfA to take a close look at and understand why.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments. On a side note, something I have been considering for a while: I wonder if 'viewing deleted pages' has potential as a userright separate from adminship? The requirements would have to be quite high, due to the fact that anyone that can view deleted content necessarily has the ability to restore deleted content and issue WP:REFUNDs (although there could be policy restrictions placed on these actions). However, this being a separate userright could be very useful to certain members of the community, and it doesn't necessarily have to be bundled with the block and delete buttons (which are the userrights that definitely require discussion). As far as its potential as a proposal, what are your thoughts? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ,viewing deleted pages has been discussed many  times (and again  recently) and will  never gain  traction. It  has alwas been met  with  a clear 'no', and it is one of thoses rare instatnces where the WMF would probably  intervene to stop it happening even if there were a consensus for it. And as I  can see no compelling  argumemnt  for  it, I would support their action. I  believe we have reached the stage now, after a succession  of unbundling, where nothing  more can be usefully  unbundled from  the admin tools (there aren't many left!).  In  fact, contrary  to  the reduction  in  the pass mark introduced in  early  Jan 2016 (or was it 2017?) I firmly  believe that access to adminship should be made more stringent rather than easier. That  said, my oft cited and used criteria at user:Kudpung/RfA criteria are far from  being the hardest; while ironically, I  have often been accused of being  too  liberal with  my  'support' votes at  RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info... I had tried to search for it, but there are a lot of things a VPP that come up in the search, and I still haven't been able to find the 'recent' discussion, but I found a couple others from 7-9 years ago. Makes sense I suppose, especially if the WMF is very against it. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The WMF would waive a significant portion of it's immunity from lawsuits if it opened up access to Special:Undelete. In their eyes, it is probably the most significant part of the admin package, and they will not tolerate it being unbundled. The reason RfA or an equivalent process must exist to receive admin rights on any WMF wiki is because of access to view deleted content and the peculiarities of US law in protecting groups that own the servers which online communities rely on. There is no point to a discussion, because the WMF would never implement because it would have the potential to bankrupt them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox UK school
Template:Infobox UK school has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox school. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BLP concerns on school article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

PE/UPE: a call for action
My tp  has often been a turntable for  discussion - not  necessariloy  started by  me -  on these matters, so  I'll try  here with  a last  fling. The more I read COIN nowadays, (especially  after our 2015 clean up  of Orangemoody which  is still  far from  complete), and after my  past  work on improving NPP/NPR, the more I  feel nausea at  what  those bottom  feeders are doing to  this encyclopedia that  has been built on millions of hours of dedicated volunteer work. It's getting to the extent that  I'm beginning to  lose the will to  invest  my  own time on it. I'm fed up with  the dozens of authors who  come to  this page with  their yammer asking  for  refunds and having to  tell  them it  ain't  going  to  happen. One can only do  so  much to  police and hold this project  together. Some of them may have started out  by being  good faith  editors, but  there came a moment  when they  threw ethics out  of the window; they  are no  better than bent  cops. Some of them saw the potential and registered their accounts deliberately to  make a quick quid. Many of them simply  pretend not to understand COI.

Before we reach the point of no return and it  becomes a total venue for lucrative exploitation, it's time now to consolidate and conclude all  the weary talking  in  the so many places and really  set about banning  PE for good, mercilessly blocking  all those authors, deleting (and salting) their creations (we're not  that  hard up now for  new articles, especially  bios and companies), and issuing a cease and desist  order to  those agencies or individuals who advertise their services. It's only by  taking  radical action  that they and other quick-buck makers will learn that paid editing  doesn't pay.

I've thrown some hurried notes together here, if anyone is doing anything  similar, let  us know. Pinging, , , , , , , , , , and of the other 567 watchers here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I added some suggestions. The three strikes and delete is really three strikes and discuss with a finality (either to delete or keep), or at-least that was the suggestion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Initial response from Athaenara
 * Eleven years ago, Brad Patrick issued "a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion" in a 29 September 2006 "Corporate vanity policy enforcement" post at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/024016.html . There's a brief extract quoted on my user page, and it was quoted at more length in the 2 October 2006 issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-02/More CSD.


 * Back then, in spite of his plain speaking on the subject, when Wikipedia was in his words "the #14 website in the world", I did not understand how bad it would get. I was involved in my own tiny corner of Wikipedia, finding interesting and notable people I'd known nothing about, until I read something by someone who did, and started writing articles about some of them.  I was (and am) naively dedicated to the encyclopedic vision.


 * As the consensus has been building for the past week to block Tony Ahn et al. and salt the earth from which they sprang, I've been wondering which of us will finally lower the badly needed boom. – Athaenara  ✉  10:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have gladly done it, but I've already voted there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * JzG performed the two main blocks at 13:26 and 13:27 UTC, 13 January. – Athaenara  ✉  01:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We definitely need a speedy category for articles created in violation of the Foundation's terms of use. There are editors who will work long and hard to prevent deletion of paid articles, almost as if they are doing so to make a point, and some of this definitely dates back to the Kohs shitstorm. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need a policy solution of some sort, but I also think that there are ways within current policy that we can act better. For example: admins should block spammers with the same sense of urgency we block teenagers who replace a page with “poop” or “PENIS!!” The teenagers messing around are easily reverted and blocked without a second thought, when in the grand scheme of things, they really aren’t doing much harm to the encyclopedia: most of them will be reverted within seconds by ClueBot. Spammers on the other hand are destroying our credibility and are much more difficult to catch (though we are making progress.) Their presence here is much more harmful than the 14 year old changing the school principal’s name to “poopy head”. Admins must start enforcing our policy on advertising with the same vigor we enforce the policy on vandalism. This requires no policy change, just more people looking at who the creator is before G11ing an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales for a recent example of the problem. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You've probably realised by now,, that it was the Doyle affair that finally precipitated my initiative to begin this discussion, and I thank you for responding to it on Wales' tp. However, I've seen worse, a lot worse, such as a case I discovered regarding vile behaviour and extortion by a Wikipedia 'editor' concerning a very notable female minor. These scammers are scum, but as a community we tend to discuss it a lot and make suggestions, but effectively do little, or at least nothing that has a lasting, penetrating effect. There are things that can be done, but everyone sits around waiting for someone else to do it.  is one of the most energetic people on this front, but his hands are tied by having to watch his back on the Board, maintain his steadfast work at Med, and as I mentioned on my sub page that I created this afternoon here, the lack of a dedicated, highly motivated workgroup.


 * There is also a limit to what can be achieved online, but there are other measures that could, with right approach, have a much greater and more significant impact.


 * Unfortunately, being scammed is like beinbg an innocent  victim of many  con  tricks: people are too embarrassed and ashamed to report it. It never ceases to amaze me how people with Doyle's extraordinary intellect  (and a specialist in marketing to boot) can fall for such con tricks. The sad thing is that Doyle, like the little girl (who incidentally didn't fall for a scam, but she and her parents were subject to a disgusting form of blackmail), are genuinely notable. What we see at COIN is only the tip of an iceberg.
 * Just reading the the 11-year old plea by a former WMF (interim CEO) would be a starter. But I know that there are even some admin colleagues out there who would turn on me on an instant if I started wielding my deletion axe and blockhammner on these people and their spam. And on this, I'm going to ping, and who I forgot to ping earlier. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting a discussion, Kudpung. Another interesting historical nugget I learned recently was that when MyWikiBiz attempted to run (the first?) paid editing scheme in 2006, Jimbo immediately indeffed them. If only we'd continued that way. Instead, we somehow ended up with weak and equivocal COI policy that has let the problem fester. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think one of the problems,, is that as Wikipedia has grown, so has the number of those who don't see any harm in paid editing. There are also the claims of the job agencies that they have admins and New Page Reviewers in their pay, and when one follows all the discussions as I do, there are certain names that clearly stand out as paid editing sympathisers (but no, folks, I'm not going to rise to any trollish requests to name them - do your own homework). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is frustrating that so many people don't acknowledge the extent of the problem. I even saw someone describe paid editing as a "moral panic" recently. I can't help but think that most of those comments would evaporate if more people spent time doing new page work or COIN. But since that's not going to happen, we should probably aim to gather some concrete figures that will help convince the sceptics. I'll add that to your subpage. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the things that depresses me most,, is that there are even Arbcom members who have been making sympathetic noises towards paid editing. There are of course others, like , who like me believe the best solution is the most radical one: ban the whole thing once and for all. As and I keep pointing out, declared PE is so tiny it's not worth defending any 'moral' tolerance of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I find it frustrating that as long as paid editors disclose themselves, they are free to go around introducing themselves and their business, solicit help from volunteers to help with their commissioned works. And there's nothing stopping them from trying to get non-notable subjects included. This is nothing different from gaming the system and has to stop. Alex Shih (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel like those paid editors that try repeatedly to write articles on non-notable people/companies need to go. 3-strikes rule for paid editors creating articles that later get deleted for not being notable. Then ban 'em. Would probably work to slow down some of the spammers. I don't have a huge issue with the (relatively few) constructive paid editors that we have, ones that haven't had any articles deleted and haven't been warned for NPOV on these paid articles, so long as they stay that way. The issue is that those editors tend to go downhill with time, so even if they start out being relatively ethical and following the spirit of policy very well, they eventually push it too far and then create a mess and timesink for all of us sorting it out. Harsh penalties for writing non-notable articles imposed on paid editors might help perhaps? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I call call this "TOU bludgeoning", when users pretend they are exempt from local en.wiki policies because they have disclosed that they are editing for pay. The simple facts are that WP:NOTSPAM applies to disclosed paid editors the same as all other users. Admins simply need to apply local policy to those who violate it. Meeting the minimum conditions to edit Wikipedia does not exempt one from this, as the recent ArbCom case affirmed. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, like the people who say "Aw, I'm so sorry, I didn't  realise I  had to  disclose anything, so  I'm  doing  it now." That  retroactive tolerance also  needs to  stop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * On the other hand,I would be pleased with retrospective tolerance for those who fully declare their earlier work. The great need we have is stop the process of undeclared paid editing for the future. The past we can deal with by NPOV and Afd. For those who do not declare earlier work, the solution is to modify speedy criterion G5 to be retrospective--that any work found to be banned undeclared paid editors will be assumed to have been donee in violation of the COI rules, and be removed also. One thing the paid editor cannot operate without is a portfolio of articles they can point to for prospective clients.
 * That's the first step. The next step is to end the process of paid editing altogether. The reason for this will emerge as we gradually force all paid editing to be declared. Even the best of the paid editors do not do good work when it's for money and raising the article standards will deal with this. Of course, I may be wrong, and a few declared paid editors may prove capable of finding enough truly notable customers and doing enough high quality honest work. If this unlikely situation should be true, I will be suprised, but also pleased that we allowed people to have the chance to vindicate themselves.  DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Time for a change?
Original section heading was "What about having WMF chip in?" but that was quickly killed :-). Changing to a more neutral wording.--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment expressed above. I think the core of the matter is an environment where "everyone can edit", which naturally includes COI editors and sock farms, with a probably significant overlap between the two groups. Given that, has it ever been discussed with WMF that they should contribute time / resources to the back-end areas, such as NPP, AfD, SPI, CAT:PROMO, etc? These activities take a considerable amount of volunteer time; for example, AfDs on businesspeople and other COI-prone areas are routinely relisted for lack of participation. Some close as no consensus for lack of quorum. SPI is frequently backlogged. Etc.

My other observation is that WP's processes are well designed to handle good-faith contributions, but not so well for COI / sock-based edits. I'm not sure how to change that. I've heard many times at company AfDs that promotional tone can be fixed through editing. Perhaps modifying "AfD is not clean up" essay to state that yes, AfD is clean-up for subjects that are prone to self-promotion, such as corporations, organisations, BLPs, organised events, etc. Another suggestion is for SPIs to conclude with the examination of the articles created by the blocked accounts. But again, that requires time and effort, hence my original suggestion of having WMH dedicate some personnel to these back-end functions.

Any thoughts on this? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I imagine there is some legal limitations on allowing checkuser fishing on blocked users? Otherwise, that is the only way I see to stop socks systemically in the long term. For example see User:Rowingasia, some users seem to be going for a record on how many sock accounts they can get banned.—  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of the stuff you write about stems from people who are inclusionists who in good faith want to see WP to grow and grow. They have a point.
 * My approach is aiming at high quality, and I am pretty relentless at improving, tagging or removing low quality content on whatever basis it is low quality. I am pretty much a "deletionist" in that regard.  If it is not high quality, actually meeting the mission of providing "encyclopdic articles that summarize accepted knowledge" then it goes.
 * But this is a basic sort of clash that is hard for the community to resolve but the community is moving toward higher quality, in my view. It takes time but it is moving that way.
 * These are content matters. I do not want the WMF involved in content. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've heard many times that AfD is not clean up from editors who make no effort to clean up said articles. My sentiment is: no thank you; I'd rather not spend my time on articles the subjects of which I don't consider notable. In the end, the sock farm "wins" -- they get their article into Wikipedia, with promo tone and a selective set of "facts" culled from PR-driven materials. That's why AfD can be hit or miss; there's even a Article Rescue Squadron.
 * At the end of the day, by deleting promo article we are not burning libraries to the ground. If the topic is indeed notable (which is highly doubtful in many cases), a volunteer editor would come along and create a neutral article. The COI-based edits are a huge timesink -- via SPI, AfD, AfC, trying to maintain article neutrality, etc. It also undermines Wikipedia's reputation. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I don't like the "afd is not cleanup" argument. I come right back with "any speedy rationale is OK for AfD and this is PROMO that would have to be written from scratch so yes, this goes". Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

AS says, we don't want the WMF dabbling with content. The staff (with just a few exceptions) are generally lacking in editorial experience or even competency. Their role is (or should be) one of maintaining the servers, developing the software and databases, complying with legal requirements, and handling the money, none of which they do to any particular degree of professionalism. It is a disorganised group of people which has evolved into a socio-political movement reminiscent of the 60s and 70s fringe political movements (albeit without the sandals and saffron coloured dubngarees) rather than a professional knowledge base, -. The software developers enjoy the freedom to experiment and develop whatever they like with little concern for what's actually needed.

, indeed, AfD is not a cleanup request service. Those nominating articles for any kind of deletion process, are not obliged whatsoever, beyond a cursory WP:BEFORE, to help the articles. To do so would be WP:BOGOF and play into the hands of the spammers and scammners, and at today's vast 5mio+ articles, we are not desperate for new content of just any kind. I wonder how many people realise that the print version of en.Wiki would fill all the shelves in an average size mainstreet bookstore. Anyone who has been doing New Page Patrol for years will know how the flow of new content has mutated into a stream of 1-line stubs about footballers, vanity bios, and corporate spam. So by being radical, there is no fear of us 'burning books'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to say is that "cleanup" for promo article at AfD is to delete it, not kick the can down the road with a "no consensus" close. See the case of E3 Media; it took 4 nominations and a DVR for it to finally bite the bullet: deletion log. :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand, . We now really  have to  stop  being  zimperlich  with  these people. One problem is our  open  policy  about  who  can vote  at  AfD. It's  very difficult  for  even an experienced AfD closer to  close against  an overwhelming, but  incorrect  consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's indeed what I was kinda wanting to do by suggesting WP:DEL4 to just be advertising in general without regard to content - but I don't know how much changing that would change attitudes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DEL4 is clearly covered by  WP:G11 and should not  need to  be sent to  AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for guidance
With you involvement with Wikiprojects Schools, I was wondering if you could assist on something I came across today.

A user has been providing major rewrites on Highland Park High School (University Park, Texas) and Highland Park Independent School District. There's a lot of new detail; but also contains weasel words, NPOV issues, and name dropping of non-notable staff and coaches. I don't want to do a full revert as there is good material, but the problems being introduced will require a lot of effort to cleanup. Unfortunately, school articles are not my primary interests, so I would prefer to have someone with a bigger interest in these types of articles to take a look. Can you assist, or is there a notice board for the wikiproject where I can request someone to work with the editor or content they are adding? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'll take a look. If you need it ant time, WT:WPSCH is the place for help. There's also WP:WPSCH/H but it doesn't get used much. Unless you need a more  general feedback, best and quickest is always to contact me first, or .  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The first thing is that they are both now a 91 and 94% COPYVIO respectively. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In this day of charter schools, schools of choice, a resurgence in the parochial school movement fueled by the Cheeto in Chief's vague promises of reviving possible voucher programs, even public schools are engaging in SEO. This makes at least the 6th one I've seen this school year. John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lovely ... I could see issues, but copyvio hadn't even hit my radar. If that's the case, maybe a full revert of both articles to their last "clean" version is the best move after all? Thanks for taking a look. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken all the copyvio out of the school article already. It now needs thoroughly pruning for the fluff and puff which while not sctrictly promo, goes well beyond what is required fro a 'pedia. We not supposed to be a school magazine or prospectus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , please see User talk:Sinsl727. Perhaps sompne could continue by removing  the padding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also taken all the copyvio out of the district article already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Images
Are we sure that the photos taken from The Park Cities: A Photohistory, Diane Galloway, Mar 1, 1989 are out of copyright? Or that she (or her publisher) has ceded the copyright? Has this been cleared with OTRS? Does it need to  be?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't locate anything on the image pages that support the claim that the images are free for use. I believe that an OTRS confirmation would be necessary - but I'll try to do some more image searches to try to verify the copyright holder's name and their release for reuse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to  an obit  I  found on Google, Galloway  passed away  not  so  long  ago. Perhaps we should soft  remove the photos until it's cleared up.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All the images are on Commons, so I asked at com:an for someone to assist with the necessary tagging and notification of the user about their otrs process.
 * Until that can be resolved, I'm fine with removal or commenting out the image use in the articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've commented out the pics on  the school article, removed some PoV, and truncated some of the prose, but  it's far from  enough and I  was probably  not   bold enough. That's all  I  can do  on  it  today  because I'm tied up  with  the COIN stuff above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling all that, much appreciated! FYI: the images have now have a deletion discussion started for them at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sinsl727. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Alt-Libertarian
Your CSD for this was removed by DGG. I'd PROD it, but I'd expect the creator to remove it. I'd AfD it, but whenever I try to set up an AfD I screw it up somehow. If you have an easy means to AfD, you might consider doing so, since it's definitely a neologism, and has no reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up  {{U|Beyond My Ken). Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

other uses
Hi. I recently created a disamb page: Deulgaon, and two articles: Deulgaon Dhudhate, and Deulgaon Awachar. Currently, at the top of the articles, I have used other. But is there some hatnote through which we could insert custom text? Like "For other towns named Deulgaon, see: ."

Kindly ping while replying. Regards, — usernamekiran (talk)  15:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * pinging as he seems to be online. — usernamekiran (talk)   15:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not use, which yields <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>  (talk),  18:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot mate! — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  18:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Overwriting of articles
Hi Kudpung, thank you for your support here, which has since been joined by other supporters. May I ask which of the options you would consider it most worth pursuing: tagging, auto edit summary, or throwing the article back into the NPR queue? Could you offer any insights on tactics for getting one of these implemented? <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  18:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . They are all pretty  important but  evryone has his own way  of working. For example, I  work  generally  from  my  watchlist which  has over 29,000 pages. Also  I'm permanently  on line so  I  always see the notifications and get the emails,  but  not  everyone uses all  those..
 * These things are now all urgent and crucial  to  our  combat  against  all  foirms of paid editing  and the associated scams. hHre are three major additions I  would like to  see flagged in  the entries on the new pages Feed:
 * "Unredirected' (a favourite trick of the paid editors)
 * Recreation of a previously  deleted article
 * Big chunks of new content poxsed in an article or complete  overwrites (your suggestion)

All these things are technicaly  feasible - with  filters that's  how recent changes works and how the automatic alerts get  added to  the edit summaries. The one single problem AFAICS, is getting the devs to  insert those tweaks in the feed entries, because that's an area the volunteers don't  have access to, it's a core MediaWiki extension and there's no way  of beating  the WMF or the people at  Phab over the head to  get  anything  done. In fact, if one asks more than twice it deliberately  gets shelved and buried under many layers of cloaks. If you  have not already  listed them HERE, please do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see it's already listed there. I've also added the NPR aspect of the proposal as No. 61 to our "suggested improvements" <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  11:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussing NPP and the backlog
Per your comment HERE.

I do not agree with you that "The workload of the New Page Patrollers[...] has diminished significantly since the roll out of ACTRIAL". I've heard you say this several times since ACTRIAL began, and it isn't quite accurate. The number of articles they used to add was about 300 per day, and we currently have 350 added per day (about a 40% reduction). This sounds great! But the problem is that not all articles are created equally, and non-autoconfirmed articles were generally easy to review; 80% went uncontroversially straight to PROD/AfD/CSD. The ones that took the time of our experienced reviewers were not these articles. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that those reviewers who specialized in deleting easy-to-delete articles (and enjoyed doing it) have not transferred to the more tedious and less rewarding process of reviewing the older submissions. Thus removing these submissions makes little difference on our reviewing capacity.

Each day, most of the new articles get reviewed before the day is even over. The other 50 or so are the difficult-to-review articles that many reviewers look at and then would like to see a second set of eyes on. Unfortunately, because of this 'sorting', we have a backlog full of difficult-to-review articles. Copyvios are also complicated by the age of articles in the backlog, taking more time to sort out due to having to check weather the source copied wikipedia or the other way around (after all they had 8 months to copy from the google-indexed article). There are relatively few of our reviewers that are confident and willing to review these older submissions. So the existing backlog is a tough nut to crack. But this is good news, because it means that once we remove the current backlog, it should be easier to keep under control (theoretically).

Inactive reviewers
Currently we have a certain number of people who are at least vetted to be experienced enough to be reviewers. That does not mean that they actually are reviewers. I ran a query on quarry to check the reviewing action of all our reviewers (includes admins as well). The result was that the vast majority of reviewers don't really do much. I manually went through about half of the list to identify those that had not used the tools and found very few that had not done any reviews, that there are a ton of NPR holders who have only done a few reviews. This is to be expected, as the NPR right just means that they are trusted to review new articles and at least at some point in the past had some interest in it. They are WP:VOLUNTEERS and we can't hate them for not doing a job which honestly is not very fun. Nor should we take away the userright from them on the basis that they haven't used it much (unless we think they can't be trusted any more). We do need to keep in mind that the number of active reviewers is a much lower number than 578. The number of those active reviewers that are capable and willing to review the difficult-to-review back of the backlog articles is even smaller.

Power law distribution and invites
Looking at the list of people I invited and their review counts, we see a clear power law curve, not much different than the distribution among all reviewers that I posted on the reviewers noticeboard a while back. I think that the newsletters definitely have a positive impact on the backlog, because it encourages people from the middle ranks to do a bit more reviewing each. However the biggest fix has been adding more reviewers through invitations, which makes the whole area under the power law curve greater. This increases the number of reviews per day and has allowed us to slowly claw ahead. This is encouraging, because if we ever have problems in the future, we have a fairly foolproof solution: invite more people from the top wikipedianspage. Even if we put 10,000 edits as the minimum for an invitee, there are 7000 more potential people to invite. About a third of those are probably suitable following checking their past and activity level, and I had a roughly 15% application rate from people I invited. This means that if I went through the list for all the people with 10000 or more edits, I'd add roughly 500 more reviewers (assuming the statistics' trends continue in the same way).

These other 500ish potential reviewers would almost certainly follow the same power-law curve as the 580 we have currently, so we would double our reviewing capacity. This is a plenty big pool, so I don't think we have to worry too much about the future as long as someone is willing to go and send out invites if NPP gets into trouble again (which I personally am).

My checklist for inviting is:
 * Check number of edits (N/A when starting from the top wikipedians page) >10000 ideally, >5000 min for my personal criteria.
 * Check activity level (mus meet NPR requirements)
 * Check block log (clean 6 mo+)
 * Check page creation log in xtools (no deleted submissions for non-notable any time recently, and very low % deleted main space articles)
 * Check talk page for other worrying signs

This checklist takes about 3-4 min per person to run all the way through, but only about 1-2 min usually because of people who quick-fail on activity level or other categories. I estimate about 100-120 hours or so to go through the entire 7000 people list (not impossible by any means). I intend to start fairly soon and continue it as a half hour a day task. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as a numerical note, before ACTRIAL we were in the 900-1000 articles created a day realm. Now that ACTRIAL is in place, we range anywhere from 600-800 pages a day (you can see the numbers here. I recommend using the 30 day averaging because it makes the trend easier to see). There is ebb and flow, yes, but overall the workload has decreased by about 20-30%. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni that total also includes some 300 articles created per day by autopatrolled users, I was discounting those as they do not end up in the queue. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , The number still decreases significantly. On 13 September 2017 the 30 day average of pages by non-autopatrolled users was 594 articles. On 13 January 2018 the 30 day average of articles created by non-autopatrolled users was 296. That is a 50% decrease in articles entering the new pages feed. There will be some discrepancy there as the autopatrolled number counts redirects, but I don' t think it would be that significant of a discrepancy (it would still be a very large decrease.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry if I wasn't clear above, but I am aware. I said "number of articles [non-autopatrolled submissions] used to add was about 300 per day". Yes we are 300 articles better off than now (from about 650 per day down to 350 per day). However, those non-autopatrolled 300 were not the hardest to review, and I also suspect that many of the editors who used to specialise in reviewing obviously bad articles have not transferred to reviewing older submissions (instead just reviewed less or stopped altogether). So even though it seems like we should have half the work, ACTRIAL actually probably only reduces the workload of NPP by around 20% (guesstimate). That is still a nice difference, and I am not saying that it isn't valuable, but Kudpung asked why ACTRIAL doesn't seem to have made as much of an impact as the raw numbers suggest it should have, and this is the answer I think. Don't get me wrong, ACTRIAL has been a total success. At this point I have to say that the backlog is in total freefall at the moment, with no sign of slowing down. At current rates, the backlog will be gone around the first week of February. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * . Thank you for the comments, but I think your message would have been more appropriate and have more impact on the NPR talk page. I have been doing NPP for a great many years which resulted not only in the recent creation of the New Page Reviewer Group and ACTRIAL, but also in the costly scientific research that the WMF did back in 2011 and the creation of the Curation/New Pages Feed suite of tools. The stats the WMF made were good, but their subjective analysis (cause & effect) was very wide of the mark. In fact as usual, the report they produced was what they wanted themselves to believe.
 * At one time back then there was a monsterous backlog at NPP, but 3 or 4 of us cleared it in a couple of weeks. And that's why I embarked on my campaign to get NPP improved.


 * Canvassing for new NPR recruits is going to reach a point of diminishing returns. That's why we don't recruit for new admins this way. Out of the 1,200 admins, only about 50 (if that) are really active, and not many of those have been around as long and as truly as active as I and a few others have. We do indeed all do as much as we can when we can, but all too often the interest wanes dramatically once the flash of getting a new user right wears off. Let's not forget also that there are in fact, believe it or not, a lot of users who just don't want more tools or more little baubles to hang on top of their user pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't put it on the NPP page because I have been spamming that page with stats quite a lot recently, and made some comments in the last month to a similar effect over there. It is possible that you are correct about diminishing returns, though I don't think that I was scraping the bottom of the barrel yet when I reached the bottom of the top 1000 editors, to I don't think that seam is played out yet. I have heard about monstrous backlogs in the past, and massive reviewing drives by a few editors, and I wonder if reviewing standards are more strict today than they were back then. In any case, I am glad that we don't have to rely on such measures, as they seem rather unsustainable in the long run. I personally don't have enough free time to work like that, and don't often review more than 100 per week. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can rest  assured that  the people who  did the massive clean up  a few years ago  were all  highly  experienced and applied the highest  standards. They  were all  admins who  were most  concerned with  the situation.. No  one is assuming  you  must  do  all  the reviewing  yourself. It  discourages me that  I'm  still  having  to  do  any reviews at  all and I'm  still  in  the top  50  reviewers out  of the 550! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good though the cleanup was,  continuing evaluation is necessary. Standards do not maintain themselves. People will not join a process if the standards are so low as to be discouraging. We need to attract bcck some of those who left out of frustration. And nobody should review more than 10 or so articles a day -- it is incompatible with maintaining quality. Anyone with the skill do to this work well can also do other projects well, such as AfD, and this provides  a broader perspective. Regulars at other project should be encouraged to come here sometimes as well, for some diversity of experience.  DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * there is no secrettechnique to attracting editors.

Bojana Sentaler
New text and references have been added. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abonzz (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * this article is obviously a vehicle for  the promotion  of a fashion  brand. None of the sources are about Sentaler. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Please see the requirements  for  biographies at  WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

21:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)21:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abonzz (talk • contribs) The page has been updated with more sources on the designer. Hopefully, it is the right info. If not, do you have any other suggestions? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abonzz (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Dr Venkat Sumantran Page deletion
Hi Kudpung recently Dr. Venkat Sumantran page got deleted and the reason given was "not have any in-depth sources per BLP" could you help me in understanding what is BPL and also how should my content be in order to prevent this in future Dr. Venkat Sumantran (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . There have many attempts to publish this page which were all declined by Wikipedia editors. There are several reasons, including that  they were written by you or your agent. Please also see the requirements for notability at WP:BLP. Our research has shown that it  is unlikely that an article about  you  will  meet  our  criteria for  inclusion  any  time soon. Thank  you  for  your  comprehension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Dr Venkat Sumantran Page deletion
Thank you Kudpung ! can i create a new page for Dr.Venkat Sumanthran Using the biography template ? or do i have an option to revoke my old page so that i can edit the content for the same ? Dr. Venkat Sumantran (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , please see my  comments above. Any  article you  write  about  yourself is likely  to  be deleted very  quickly. Wikipedia is not  the place to  promote yourself. Besides which, an article about you will not  meet our criteria for notabili at  this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation issues with my page David Gwinnutt
Hi Kudpung, Thanks for your comments. Could you please tell me what the issue is exactly with the two citations you mention? I can then fix them Thanks David Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly558 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gwinnutt is clearly notable, but  I  think  what  I  onitted to  say is that that  we require some independent  reliable sources that  cover him  in-depth. The cited sources are only  about  his pictures. There obviously  must  be sources available about  the person. The article is not  in  danger of deletion, but  is not  likely  to be the the target  of expansion into  a useful  article by other Wikipedia editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok noted, many thanks - appreciated. P.S. I tried to sign the message as requested but the blue signature box wasn't live or offering me the option of signing. Am I missing something? Or does it mean this.... Kelly558


 * {U|Kelly558}}, the blue box is just a reminder. Please see Signatures. You'll find all you need to know there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello!
Sorry for editing the plot it was a mistake. I accidentally clicked it. Please just change it, my computer sucks right now. Sorry for bothering you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.42.59 (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ive never been anywhere near that article. Anyway, your problems are moot - you've already been blocked by . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

page Bojana Sentaler
Since the designer is known in Canada, what other changes need to be made? Thanks for your help! Abonzz (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abonzz (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

page George Crouch
I have edited the George Crouch article and removed the copyrighted sections. Could you Kudpung กุดผึ้ง check if the article is ok now and if I could remove the copyright warnings. Thanks and sorry for the hassle! hki007 19:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination). —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection please
Could we have a little admin protection for Aylesford School – Sports College. Can't do it myself. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , ✅. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Krehm
The date of birth is correct. He is 104.

"William Krehm, born 1913."Nixon Now (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)