User talk:Kudpung/Archive May 2019

Quo vadis Elizabeth College, Guernsey
Could you have a look at the authorship of Elizabeth College, Guernsey? How do we sensitively treat this one? --ClemRutter (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I assume you refer to the recent edits by a 12-year old account which according to the rules should never have been allowed to exist. There is talk by the editor  here of a block but I can't  see anything in the block log. The edits are harmless and constructive and I would be loath to block this account,  but a Username/COI soft block would probably be the right thing to do according to the rules. Let's see what  suggests. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * since it is making its corrections without sources, I wonder about copyvio.  DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I seriously wonder whether the person(s) running that account are even the same as the one who made this comment 12 years ago (cited by Kudpung above). Observe User:Editor Elizabethan created yesterday. It strongly implies a role account. If nothing else, they need a warning about role accounts, shared passwords, etc. The mysterious "block" mentioned by the user in 2007 probably came from editing while logged out from the same IP(s) used by the school's pupils (or others) for vandalism. See here on another admin's talk page later in 2007. Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The editor has since cited a source and reinstated two of the edits, but I'm still uneasy about the nature of the account. Particularly if it's a role account with shared editors, other editors may be less understanding of WP:NOR and understanding COI.  Formulaone  wiki  09:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Out of the box suggestion
I'd like to run something by you. I'm picking on you for three reasons: one is my enormous respect for your insights. Second, you have considerable experience in the relevant area and last but definitely not least, because I think you may disagree with my suggestion. I'd like to know the arguments against before I go any further.

As background, I think you know I haven't been directly involved in new page patrol while you've been enormously involved. I am tangentially involved in two different ways. As an active OTRS volunteer (sorry I know that's a sore subject), a very common email involves wondering how to speed up the review process. The standard response is painful to send, that they must simply wait the couple of months it may take. My second tangential involvement is due to being an active participant in Copy Patrol. Many of the hundreds of items flagged each day are new drafts.

The second involvement is important as it occurs to me I might have a biased view of drafts — I'm much more apt to see problematic ones than good ones. I get to my proposal and a second but before going too far, I'd want to do some more sophisticated statistical review, not just lean on anecdotes.

Let me jump to my tentative observation — it's my opinion that, as a community, we do a disservice by permitting new editors to attempt to create a brand-new article.

I felt this way for a long time, as witness, this advice I wrote almost a decade ago: User:Sphilbrick/sandbox for new editor advice

Let me emphasize that I'm totally on board with letting brand-new editors, even unregistered editors, edit existing articles as broadly as possible. While some unregistered editors are a pain when it comes to vandalism, I believe that studies have shown that allowing people to edit as unregistered editors both materially improves substantial articles and provides a path they persuade someone to become an established, prolific editor.

In contrast, I feel that editors who start off by trying to create a brand-new article are making a mistake. I'd like to pull together some true statistics but my bet is that over 99% of these efforts fail. If my stat is even close to correct, that has two bad outcomes. One bad outcome is that a potential editor is turned off by the rejection and may not ever become a meaningful contributor. The second bad outcome is that valuable resources (such as you) spend far too many hours reviewing a draft that is not close to acceptable and try to politely provide some advice that doesn't let them down too hard.

The analogy I often use is imagining a friend came to you and said they were thinking of taking up running. Not a bad idea, but they tell you that they decided to enter a marathon as their first attempt. Anyone who knows anything about running knows that this is a horrific idea, even though it is theoretically possible that someone could complete a marathon is the first running event. (As an aside, I'd like to find a more general good analogy)

Imagine a world in which we tell people they are highly encouraged to edit, but if they wish to create a brand-new article from scratch, they need to get their feet wet with smaller edits to existing articles. That will introduce them to MediaWiki concepts, article structure issues, referencing and a whole host of other important concepts which should be learned one or two at a time not all at once.

Every day I nominate for deletion in article drafted by someone for which it is their first edit, and the bulk of which is a copy and paste from some organizations "about" page. It has to be deleted and I suspect that editor may never return. What if they were told they had to start out with smaller edits and even if they do commit a copyright violation perhaps it would be less of a big deal if it's a single edit than the blowing away of a whole page.

Thoughts?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . We certainly do a disservice by permitting new editors to attempt to create a brand-new article, and I  agree with  you  100% there. That  was the reason  for  my  almost  decade-long  battle to get  ACTRIAL and ACPERM finally  accepted. The restriction  set  by ACPERM  is not, of course, enough but it  was as much  as I/we  dared ask for  or suggest  in  order to  obtain  an overwhelming  consensus. Much  better would be 90 days and 500  edits. Those who  oppose the imposition  of  restrictions on  the basis of Wikipedia's mantra  'The encyclopedia anyone can edit'   are riding  on  a fallacy  or a strawman. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, provided they  follow certain rules. Wikipedia is unique in  that  it's probably  the only web site, blog, or social media type site  that  does not  require registration  for basic editing, and that's probably  where you  and I  disagree somewhat, but  I'm open to  being  disproved if stats were to  show that  the vast  majority of non-registered edits  are positive ones. New bots and filters have done a lot to  highlight  possible vandalism but a lot  still escapes notice, especially  the more subtle kind and those that  are accompanied by reasonable sounding  edit  summaries.
 * We have fought  for  improvements  to the NPR/Page Curation  software for  4  years or more and finally  topped the WMF's Christmas Wishlist last  year and they announced this week  that  they  will begin  addressing  our requirements. However, it's not  entirely  everything  we wanted, especially  better resources for  COPYVIO.  What  we actually  wanted was a new version  of the script  that  got  lost  a couple of years ago  that  actually  automatically examined  new articles for  copyright  violations and templated them. What  we got  instead was an ORES thing  that  simply  flags articles in  the New Pages Feed that  there may  be a COPYVIO that needs further examination. I wouldn't  slight  for  a moment the work  of Copypatrol, but  I  believe it  is more of a palliative than a help  to  New Page reviewers. The best  thing  would be to  merge copypatrol  with  NPR, but  I  have no  idea how that  could be done and also  achieve some collaboration between the New Page patrollers and the Copypatrollers.
 * OTRS is as you said, a bit  of a sore point  for  me because I  was kicked off it  for  not  doing  enough -  ironically  while I  was in  the middle of handling  a delicate complaint  from  the subject  of a BLP. The OTRS interface in  those days was also  a complete  mess but  I  believe it  has since been improved . I  wish  we could kick off some  of the NPR hat collectors, but  the rest  of the more solid NPR  community  doesn't  appear to  entirely share my  thoughts . One of the reasons for the erratic backlog  graph is that  many  people see that  we have 650  accredited patrollers and believe we have enough  people  to  do  the work  whereas in reality  the actual  patrolling  is done by  just  a couple of handfulls of people. If OTRS  is getting  a lot  of questions about  the time it  takes to  review new articles, I  think  the creators of those article should accept  that  unlike the other Big-4  web sites, Wikipedia is run  by  volunteers, and they  need to  be patient. After all, no  Wikipedia articles are urgent -  except  those by  the agents of candidates for  political  office prior to  elections, and those are the very articles we certainly  do  not  want. A lot  of the new drafts and articles we get  are from  people  who  simply, and genuinely  naÏvely,  do  not  understand what  an encyclopedia is. Also, many  articles are submitted by  non native speakers who, IMO, should be encouraged to help  build their home language Wiki. The Article Wizard never   the  makeover that  was required to  bring  it  in line with  ACPERM. That  was something  I  was going  to  do, but  my  time nowadays is rather limited for  that  kind of detailed development.
 * There is nothing like  experience for knowing  how Wikipedia works, and as you  and I  both  know, it's  a long  and empirical  learning  curve, but  many  people  (and even newer admins) don't  have the staying  power. I  retired from  my  de facto  decade-long coordination  of NPP/NPR  two  years ago, but  no  one has really taken the initiative to carry  on  the work, so  NPR  is at  the moment  somewhat  rudderless,  and despite their efforts, their newsletters are not  of the quality  they  used to  be. IMO, NPR  is the single most  important  of all  Wkipedia processes - it's our  only  firewall  against unwanted content - but  still needs to be improved much  more, and software enhancements to  make the work a bit  easier don't  seem to  doing  the trick  as you  will  see from  the self-updating  graph at  WT:NPR. Perhaps if you  were to  take a moment (if you  have not  done so  already, of course) and spend a few hours  looking  at  the recent  content  of the New Pages Feed and the AfC backlog, you  will  have a deeper understanding  of the challenges  which  we are now required to  meet, especially  in face of the growth  of paid editing which worst  of all,  exploits our  volunteer work  for  gain, and creates a lot  of work  at  COIN.  You  are one of the people  who  can come up  with  some sensible suggestions,  let  me know of any  ideas you  have.  Take care, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your thoughts, I'll reply in more depth tomorrow. S Philbrick  (Talk)  02:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your extensive response.
 * While I was aware of ACPERM, I had forgotten some of the details so I thank you for pointing me to that, as it has a lot of useful information — in particular, the views of editors who are likely to oppose what I'm thinking of proposing.
 * You said, "...finally topped the WMF's Christmas Wishlist last year and they announced this week that they will begin addressing our requirements. " Can you point me to something? I'd like to see what's coming if for no other reason than that it may have some impact on copyright issues.
 * In my opinion copy patrol is working reasonably well from the point of view of the encyclopedia (not necessarily NPR). I have concerns that it is staffed wrong — two of us are handling the bulk of the request which is not a good long-term plan. I took care to use the term encyclopedia as opposed to NPR. I think we get to most of the reports within a day, which is an acceptable response time from the point of view of the encyclopedia, but I suspect we aren't ahead of NPR in most cases so we don't provide much relief for NPR.
 * I haven't, and I should take a look at the new page feed. I will, before I go too much further.
 * However, I'd like to share some of my nascent thoughts.
 * I'll start by echoing one of your thoughts. We are 'The encyclopedia anyone can edit' but that doesn't preclude certain limitations. Deleting an article is an edit, but we don't permit anyone to do that. Editing a protected article is an edit but we place some limitations on that. My suggestion is we start with the assumption that creating a new article from scratch is not the same as making minor or even major edits to an existing article, and we ought to have the right to place some limitations on the creation of new articles.
 * I suspect even that reasonable assertion will get some pushback, so I plan to build an exception (number 3 below) whose details still need to be worked out.
 * Imagine something like this:
 * Wikipedia supports the mantra that we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This means that if you see an (unprotected) article that could use some improvement, you are free to click on edit and make changes to improve it. However, if you would like to start an article from scratch you need to be authorized to do so. There are three ways this can happen:
 * You demonstrate competence by achieving 500 edits and being here for 90 days since your registration date
 * You demonstrate competence by completing the Wikipedia adventure part one, and Wikipedia adventure part two (this part two is something that would need to be constructed but would contain advanced issues)
 * You persuade an existing editor with requisite permissions (details to be worked out, something short of admin but more than auto confirmed) to help. That editor will create a blank draft containing just the proposed title and will turn it over to you for editing.
 * The third option is there for two reasons. One can imagine a number of scenarios where someone without many edits might be viewed as competent to create their own article. Perhaps they are active in another language, perhaps they are a subject matter expert with writing experience, or perhaps they are brand-new added editor-a-thon with competent help looking over their shoulder.
 * It is my belief, anecdotally supported by my experience with new editors and copyright issues, that many brand-new editors aren't quite ready to start a new article from scratch. It's also my opinion that allowing this creates two problems — first we turn off potential new editors by summarily turning down their first attempts, and second, we divert valuable resources from the useful task of reviewing truly promising articles to the tiresome task of reviewing piles of crap. This proposal would address both those problems. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kudpung, Sphilbrick! I'm following this thread with interest, and think Sphilbrick's suggestion has lots of merit. Personally, I'd love to see the auto-confirmed threshold raised to 50 mainspace edits, and page move and mainspace article creation rights limited to extended-confirmed users – the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but not just do whatever they or their boss wants in. I don't see the creation of crap drafts as a major problem in itself (I don't think experienced AfC reviewers take long to decide to decline those), except that at the moment anyone with ten edits can (and often does!) move their piece of crap into mainspace. As for copypatrol, the present situation is wholly unacceptable, with just one person (well, OK, now two) carrying the entire load. I don't know exactly why it's so much less accessible to other editors than SCV used to be, but it surely is; I've tried handling a bit from time to time, and – well, ended up doing other things instead. SCV was an invaluable training ground for those interested in helping with copyvio control, and this doesn't seem to be. That's a pity. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Imagine something like this:
 * Wikipedia supports the mantra that we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This means that if you see an (unprotected) article that could use some improvement, you are free to click on edit and make changes to improve it. However, if you would like to start an article from scratch you need to be authorized to do so. There are three ways this can happen:
 * You demonstrate competence by achieving 500 edits and being here for 90 days since your registration date
 * You demonstrate competence by completing the Wikipedia adventure part one, and Wikipedia adventure part two (this part two is something that would need to be constructed but would contain advanced issues)
 * You persuade an existing editor with requisite permissions (details to be worked out, something short of admin but more than auto confirmed) to help. That editor will create a blank draft containing just the proposed title and will turn it over to you for editing.
 * The third option is there for two reasons. One can imagine a number of scenarios where someone without many edits might be viewed as competent to create their own article. Perhaps they are active in another language, perhaps they are a subject matter expert with writing experience, or perhaps they are brand-new added editor-a-thon with competent help looking over their shoulder.
 * It is my belief, anecdotally supported by my experience with new editors and copyright issues, that many brand-new editors aren't quite ready to start a new article from scratch. It's also my opinion that allowing this creates two problems — first we turn off potential new editors by summarily turning down their first attempts, and second, we divert valuable resources from the useful task of reviewing truly promising articles to the tiresome task of reviewing piles of crap. This proposal would address both those problems. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kudpung, Sphilbrick! I'm following this thread with interest, and think Sphilbrick's suggestion has lots of merit. Personally, I'd love to see the auto-confirmed threshold raised to 50 mainspace edits, and page move and mainspace article creation rights limited to extended-confirmed users – the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but not just do whatever they or their boss wants in. I don't see the creation of crap drafts as a major problem in itself (I don't think experienced AfC reviewers take long to decide to decline those), except that at the moment anyone with ten edits can (and often does!) move their piece of crap into mainspace. As for copypatrol, the present situation is wholly unacceptable, with just one person (well, OK, now two) carrying the entire load. I don't know exactly why it's so much less accessible to other editors than SCV used to be, but it surely is; I've tried handling a bit from time to time, and – well, ended up doing other things instead. SCV was an invaluable training ground for those interested in helping with copyvio control, and this doesn't seem to be. That's a pity. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is my belief, anecdotally supported by my experience with new editors and copyright issues, that many brand-new editors aren't quite ready to start a new article from scratch. It's also my opinion that allowing this creates two problems — first we turn off potential new editors by summarily turning down their first attempts, and second, we divert valuable resources from the useful task of reviewing truly promising articles to the tiresome task of reviewing piles of crap. This proposal would address both those problems. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kudpung, Sphilbrick! I'm following this thread with interest, and think Sphilbrick's suggestion has lots of merit. Personally, I'd love to see the auto-confirmed threshold raised to 50 mainspace edits, and page move and mainspace article creation rights limited to extended-confirmed users – the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but not just do whatever they or their boss wants in. I don't see the creation of crap drafts as a major problem in itself (I don't think experienced AfC reviewers take long to decide to decline those), except that at the moment anyone with ten edits can (and often does!) move their piece of crap into mainspace. As for copypatrol, the present situation is wholly unacceptable, with just one person (well, OK, now two) carrying the entire load. I don't know exactly why it's so much less accessible to other editors than SCV used to be, but it surely is; I've tried handling a bit from time to time, and – well, ended up doing other things instead. SCV was an invaluable training ground for those interested in helping with copyvio control, and this doesn't seem to be. That's a pity. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kudpung, Sphilbrick! I'm following this thread with interest, and think Sphilbrick's suggestion has lots of merit. Personally, I'd love to see the auto-confirmed threshold raised to 50 mainspace edits, and page move and mainspace article creation rights limited to extended-confirmed users – the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but not just do whatever they or their boss wants in. I don't see the creation of crap drafts as a major problem in itself (I don't think experienced AfC reviewers take long to decide to decline those), except that at the moment anyone with ten edits can (and often does!) move their piece of crap into mainspace. As for copypatrol, the present situation is wholly unacceptable, with just one person (well, OK, now two) carrying the entire load. I don't know exactly why it's so much less accessible to other editors than SCV used to be, but it surely is; I've tried handling a bit from time to time, and – well, ended up doing other things instead. SCV was an invaluable training ground for those interested in helping with copyvio control, and this doesn't seem to be. That's a pity. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , Your suggestions are IMHO perfectly  valid. However, this almost  certainly comes too  hard on  the heels of ACPERM, one of the major policy  changes ever,  which  was rolled out  barely  a year  ago. Considering  the number of years it  took  to  get  it finally  through, I  doubt that  the community  will accept a further tightening  up  the rules any  time soon. ACPERM was not  only a big step, but  it  was also a major  demonstration  that  the WMF who  blocked it  for  years, were just  not  in  touch  with  reality until they  had the threat of a) New page reviewers going  on  strike or b) installing  our own local script to  enable it  anyway (a move that  the WMF at  the time would have probably  reverted). Nevertheless, the WMF finally  agreed to  an extensive data survey by  an independent  analyst during  and after the trial which  proved that  the WMF had been completely  wrong in  its assumptions. At  the time, IIRC, the NPR backlog  was riding  at  a monumental  22,000 or so - see the article I  wrote in  The  Signpost at Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/Special report regarding  NPR, AfC, and black-hat paid editors (the one who  was using his privileges at  OTRS).
 * After the implementation of ACPERM, the number of inappropriate new creations dropped significantly, theoretically much  reducing  the workload for  the reviewers, but  while the backlog  was reduced to  under 3,000 at  one time, it  is now  at  7,000 which  is totally unsustainable. You  can see who  of the 650  reviewers actually  does the work at Database reports/Top new article reviewers and it  seems to  add credence to  my  contention  that  many  of the rights  holders are hat  collectors. There is talk  now of doing  another backlog  drive, but there is a risk  that this causes fast, superficial  patrolling.
 * Special:NewPagesFeed has recent enhancements resulting  from  talks with  the WMF I  and a couple of others had last  year regarding  improvements  to  AfC and the inclusion  of the AfC queue in  the New Pages Feed, thus NPR  shares the same ORES features. This includes the ORES  flagging  of articles that  are potential  COPYVIO, Spam, Attack, etc.,  but  as I mentioned above, it  does not  appear to have enhanced or sped up  the actual  checking  of the copyvios in  the way that  the defunct  COREN bot  did, or new page patrolling  overall.  The ORES flags don't  really  do  much  more than a competent reviewer would identify  from  the article (but  what  is the level  of 'competent'?).
 * I admit  that  personal  circumstances over the past  12 months have not  permitted me to  stay  abreast  of more recent  developments, but  the list  of requests for  tweaks to  the Curation  system can be seen on a page I largely populated in  September 2016 at  Page Curation/Suggested improvements. Due to  the success at  the Christmas Wishlist some of these items are now receiving  attention  from  the WMF (see the Phap tags). These are mainly  requests for  improvements  to  the interface, and I  don't  think  they  will  have much  impact  on  Copypatrol. Coordination  of this and other NPR matters was taken over for  a while under the initiative of, but  his personal  circumstances have changed recently  and I'm  not  sure he is currently very  active. COPYVIO and WP:COIN  often go hand-in-hand but  I  don't  believe there is sufficient  cross-coordination between the editors who  reside in  their favourite niche areas -  and some of them are very  protective about  their 'territory', and they  are all  stretched to  the limit. I  guess I'm  one of the admins who  over the years has tried to  do  a bit  of everything, but  although  it  gives one an excellent  insight  into  Wikipedia, it's an impossible task.
 * The Copypatrol  interface is not  as easy  to  use as for example, going  straight  to Earwig from  the link in  the Wikipedia sidebar, but  at  the current  state of affairs, it's possible that  the Copyvios have already  been addressed by  yourself or . As a patroller, I  tend to  flag  for  CSD rather than repair anything  that  is more than a 50% copyvio. The  bottom  line is that  as an encyclopedia, we are not now, or no  longer should be, hungry  for  new content  at  any  cost, and those who  have a COI, or get  paid for  their work,  or who  post  spam have only  themselves to  blame. Very  few of those kinds of people  will  come back  and become established editors. It's not  worth  mollycoddling them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, you would also  be interested in  the current discussion at Village_pump_(policy) proposed by  . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , You have many interesting thoughts.
 * I did see Tony's draft prod, which had some initial support, but is not going particularly well. I will ping Tony  to make one small point. I see that Tony emphasize that this wasn't a proposal it was an attempt to open a discussion. It's my opinion that the idea lab was created to have discussions, not immediately leaping to up or down !votes, and the result of the discussion might be a more finely honed go to "proposals" or "policy" depending on the nature of the idea. It may not be too late to take something to the idea lab and emphasize that it's a place to discuss the concepts.
 * I will take on board your concern that my proposal "almost certainly comes too hard on the heels of ACPERM". I am already mulling over the possibility that the limitations shouldn't apply to creating a draft but asking for review, although that may be a distinction without a difference. I started a very limited review of the AFC feed, which I'll attempt to summarize shortly. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that I was working on a review of some of the entries in the new page feed. Although I only looked at six entries, I think they illustrate some important points and suggests to me that tightening up the requirements is worth pursuing. That said, I do see examples of decent submissions created by editors who would not meet a raw edit count/experience hurdle, so this emphasizes the need for alternative paths.
 * I will take on board your concern that my proposal "almost certainly comes too hard on the heels of ACPERM". I am already mulling over the possibility that the limitations shouldn't apply to creating a draft but asking for review, although that may be a distinction without a difference. I started a very limited review of the AFC feed, which I'll attempt to summarize shortly. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that I was working on a review of some of the entries in the new page feed. Although I only looked at six entries, I think they illustrate some important points and suggests to me that tightening up the requirements is worth pursuing. That said, I do see examples of decent submissions created by editors who would not meet a raw edit count/experience hurdle, so this emphasizes the need for alternative paths.

The gory details are here: User:Sphilbrick/New page feed review

I'll copy my general observations here:

General observation

Let's start with the caveat that six items constitutes too small a sample to draw statistically significant conclusions, but these entries do illustrate points worth considering.

As a placeholder, I'm going to use the term "qualified editor" as someone who meets certain standards to be determined, and who status permits them to create a draft and ask for a review.


 * Two of the entries (3, 5) are in decent shape. As with any early draft that is room for improvement but I wouldn't be unhappy about seeing either of these in main space. Both of these illustrate the point that a hard count/experience limit should not be the only path to becoming a qualified editor.


 * Two of these entries (2, 4) illustrate the problems caused when allowing unqualified editors to create a draft and ask for a review. While the review might not take a long time, when there are literally thousands of items in the queue, a wasting of time by the reviewer as well as the editor creating the draft. Both of these editors might be capable of making small edits to existing articles and when they have enough experience it is very possible they might be able to create an acceptable draft.


 * Two of these entries (1, 6) are examples of subjects which probably ought to have an article in main space, but these two drafts illustrate that the lack of knowledge of the editor produces something not yet acceptable. Both of these create a drain on resources as a reviewer has to take the time to be both positive about the likelihood that the subject matter is notable but explaining some of the shortcomings so that the draft can be improved. If the reviewer spends a lot of time and thoroughly lists all issues, perhaps the re-review will be successful, but if they only identify low hanging fruit issues, the next review might also fail. In both of these cases, it is my opinion that a qualified editor would produce an acceptable draft which would produce a higher quality product and lower drain on reviewer resources.

We need more data points, but this very preliminary review suggests that requiring that review requests must come from qualified editors will cut out a portion of doomed submissions, and increase the chance that the submissions which are made are in much better shape and require fewer reviewer resources. S Philbrick (Talk)  15:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , AfC drafts are available in the New Pages Feed when selected. The feed has separate lists  for  new mainspace pages and new drafts. Ideally, the two  lists  should be merged. The required qualifications for  the NPR user right are at: WP:NPR. AfC is not  governed by an official  user right  but  the reviewers are required to  be qualified according  to  a local  system I  introduced a couple of years ago. See WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. Many, but  not  all,   AfC reviewers are already  holders of the NPR  right. There are many  AfC reviewers, but  like  NPR, the question  is just  how many  of them are truly  active. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, I now see the option to select between the two. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

i surely hope if my english was more skillful
if i do not know how to say a certain word or word in english, then is it allowed to help yourself in using google translate? i know that some websites are against rules, is that so? (i'm really right now so if there is no permission then please avoid punishment.Atlantic Channel (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . You can use Goggle Translate to  look  up  single words, but  it's best  to  use a proper bilingual  dictionary (book or online). If you  are using  online tools, always do  a back-translation  to  check the meaning  again. Google is reasonably  good for  translating among  European languages, but it's not  so  good for  Hindi and Assamese, and other Asian languages such  as Thai  for  example. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Crete (Region)
Hi! I noticed you notified User:Santiago RD that you were marking Crete (Region) for speedy deletion because of copyright violation, but there’s no sign of any tag or any edit at the article...? We’re you looking into it further? :-) — Gorthian (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * According to  the COPYVIO  tool, this page is a 70.2% COPYVIO  of this. There appears to  be a glitch  in  the Curation tool. I  notice now that  while it  put  the user warning  on  the creator's talk  page twice, it  did not  attach the CSD emplate to  the article. Thanks for pointing  it  out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , BTW, if you would like  to  go  ahead and remove the copyvios, you're welcome to  do  so if there is anything  left  to  keep, and remove my  CSD tag. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ll see what I can do in the morning. I think there may be some copying from Wikipedia mixed in as well. — Gorthian (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, it's already been turned into  a redirect  by  another editor. Also  an appropriate  solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Accidental revert
Hi, apologies. My laptop has a strange lag and I accidentally reverted an edit to your talkpage while looking at my Watchlist. Sorry. Davidelit (Talk) 03:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your in changes in the article about the Beckham Law

 * Hello Kudpungกุดผึ้ง, the article explicitly says "This article needs attention from an expert in Taxation", which we are. I can add more sources if you want us to reflect consensus on this matter, although there isn't a big literature regarding this topic, which is actually relevant. We intend to make not only one, but several contributions to Wikipedia.(Suarez Santiago (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC))
 * Replied on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

×Missing edit summaries process
Hi What is the process for established editors who continually don't leave edit summaries. I noticed there is no warning template outside Template:Uw-editsummary and once you have posted them with Uw-editsummary 3 times and they still ignore it, what then?  scope_creep Talk  10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , probably WP:DTTR. In other words unless it's actually causing a significant problem, it's best not to look for reasons to police and warn regular contributors. You will see for example, that I always use 'reply to user:x' in my talk page es, while on other kinds of talk pages I just leave 'cmt' for comment, which says nothing at all but fulfills the requirement of providing an es. I always use a detailed summary when adding or editing article content. While it is recommended to leave an edit summary for each edit, it is not required by policy. Everything you need to know is at WP:ES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is fairly comprehensive. I'll take a look again. Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  10:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Problematic account
Block evasion. Ilmulnafia has returned with a new account Shworks999. Same activity, adding promotional box office figures with poor references in Madhura Raja by mass editing and edit warring. See the same "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit" and "Visual edit" edit. Also constructively adding random references at "Reference section and External links section same as Ilmulnafia. Also has edited the talk page in the "Box office collection" section. 62.68.119.33 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your editing of my unblock decline
Hi Kudpung, I'm really curious why you edited my unblock decline and replaced my signature on Shworks999's talk page here? Cheers, stwalkerster (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , seems like it was an edit conflict. When I started editing the page the only decline was 's. Feel free to revert, but see the section just above here regarding block evasion - you may wish to extend the block to indef. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)