It was about Draft:Rachel J. I made an extensive google search for the terms "Rachel J" and "Rachel Jambaya" but couldn't find anything related with/to these names. Currently none of the information on the draft is verifiable. This artist may be popular regionally but that too requires proofs to verify notability. I suggest for moving this page back to mainspace so that I/you can start a potential AfD for it. What do you think? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the kind reply! Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
You're right but let's summone "@ DGG:" to get his input. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree to WBG and DGG that Kudpung should move it back to mainspace and the start an AfD. Let's see what Kudpung have to say. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Worcestershiresauce bottle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert ( talk) 06:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Kudpung, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
See the issue 8 proof copy here; this is brand new but I posted two of these earlier on the Newsroom talkpage ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Some long overdue WikiLove from me. Thanks for your stoic work on the Signpost - I am a big fan of the WikiPublication. Moreover, allow me to apologise for being so unnecessarily curt towards you in this diff. I misunderstood the meaning of your message, and failed to comprehend the positive intents of the comment. You tried to assist me in participating in Wikipedia's elections, and I was needlessly deaf towards your message. For that, I sincerely (and belatedly) apologise, and hope that this cookie go some way as a token of my regret. Thanks, Stormy clouds ( talk) 21:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I am attempting to have a brief article regarding my project Pylon Reenactment Society (band) entered into Wikipedia. I don’t think it is overblown or unworthy. Why do you continue recommending that it be deleted. There are several interesting facts that link to other music projects from this one including The Glands, Pylon and Casper & the Cookies.
I would appreciate your passing this article for review to someone who has an interest in indie music.
I know you have a lot of time invested on Wikipedia and have given a lot of your time, but I think you are wrong to target my project like this.
Thanks,
Vanessa Briscoe Hay Peaches1955 ( talk) 02:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, it's been a while. Reading through the arbitration report from the Signpost, I started to think that for the sake of transparency, shouldn't the arbitration committee release a monthly report/summary of what has been done during that month? What do you think? It would make a good additional reading I think. Alex Shih ( talk) 15:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Alex Shih, Amorymeltzer, Amorymeltzer, and Guerillero: thanks for your input. I don't know how in the past how all the sections of The Signpost were compiled but I think this is a very good idea because the editorial team absolutely cannt continue to create all the content. If an Arbcom clerk would like tom commit to providing the report regularly on a monthly basis, it would be very much appreciated. 28 August is the copy deadline for the next issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I see an overemphasis on deletion in your talk page and comments. You may want to read this. Cheers, DoctorSpeed Want to talk?
Thank you, DoctorSpeed Want to talk?
Stuff from editor told to go away
|
---|
|
( talk page stalker) If you don't like personal attacks, don't support a president who dishes them out like free candy. Now I need to attend to the washing machine, because there's a distinct smell of footwear here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung, can you please userfy for me Martin Gjoka, if it's not too much trouble? It was deleted back in 2008, but it's definitely notable. I'll see if I can improve it and restart somehow. He is definitively a notable musician. Thanks! -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 21:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Padre Martin Gjoka (1890-1940) was an Albanian composer and Franciscan priest.Please create a new article at Martin Gjoka (draft) in Draft space and then submit it to AfC for review. However, do not translate the article at sq.Wiki because it won't pass notability criteria here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's off-topic for Jbh's RfA, but if somebody dragged Xxanthippe to ANI and proposed a one-way interaction ban with Megalibrarygirl, I would support it. I think I had about 20 emails back and forth with Sue all week about how to handle questions, and in my view she didn't put a foot wrong anywhere, which explains why she got the second most successful RfA of all time. (talk) (cont) 21:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung -- I wanted to let you know that we now have the evolving version of the New Pages Feed up in Test Wiki so that reviewers can try out the feed and bring up issues and ideas as we develop. I'm hoping that this will help our team work closely with the reviewing community. It would be great if you have time to try it out and let us know what you think on the talk page. Thank you. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 19:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I thought I'd take a look at just how experienced the editors who expressed their opposition at the last RfA were. Perhaps you find this helpful: User:Vexations/lists/RfA_Opposes. I was surprised at how high the median number of edits is: 22,768. I'm in the lower half myself. -- Vexations ( talk) 02:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Wen you see silly votes on an RfA, never hesitate to send them Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters. My standard boilerplate is "Hi, thanks for participating in an RfA. Do take a moment to read THIS, and we look forward to your votes again." Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
For anyone following this thread or my recent series of Admin Ship articles in the last three issues of The Signpost:
Some years ago in 2011, I started and facilitated what still today is the single most in-depth research into RfA. It didn't bring about any changes because after a lot of hard work gathering background information, the on-Wiki efforts began to be trolled so much by the anti-admin brigade that we just gave up. However, apart from the huge mass of data being now slightly out of date, the arguments and suggestions in that project are still as valid as they are today - perhaps even more so: 'Fix the voters and RfA will fix itself' .
People who since then post at
WT:RfA keep coming up with all these ideas as if they were new and they are the first to come up with them.
I didn't provide the stats myself. Although like everyone, I had to do courses on stats at uni, it was in the days when desktop computers were still science fiction, so I later never learned more than the most basic regex, and not at all how to quarry a database.
Our greatest help was
Scottywong who has unfortunately long since retired.
Scott came up with some excellent tables that demonstrate voter trends and patterns which are shown at
WP:RFA2011/VOTING. What would be an enormous help would be to have a new set of tables based, say, on the last three years of RfA voting.
CAN YOU HELP?
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
19:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung! I have read your upcoming story on The Signpost about the Go Fish Digital UPE. It is a great piece and I think it is important to update the community on the issue. Since the story talks about the later discussion on Jimbo's talk page with specific quotes, I would not mind getting credited for finding the link between Go Fish Digital and the BurritoSlayer sockfarm as well as finding a few sockpuppets of the company. If you don't consider the inclusion relevant, I completely understand, it's your piece after all. Best, MarioGom ( talk) 12:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, You recently deleted a page about Bill K Koul, /info/en/?search=Bill_K_Koul. He is an Australian author and editor who has published three books so far and many blogs on his website. How can I improve the page so it can be published in wiki. Thanks and regards, -- Fhb999 ( talk) 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Bill K Koul’s books and blogs, his website, his LinkedIn page, his Facebook page, YouTube and Google. -- Fhb999 ( talk) 03:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
...especially if they are men- I think that nails it. But your apology is accepted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I am thinking of overhauling and resurrecting the NPR school sometime soon. I see you are listed as a trainer over there. Could you check your listing on the trainer list to make sure that it is accurate, or remove the listing if you no longer wish to be a trainer. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 23:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
No we haven't deactivated the inactive users, but we know who they are. Per https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/28967 56 editors with the right haven't reviewed anything since November 2016 (when the NPR user right was rolled out).-- Vexations ( talk) 02:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
list of inactive reviewers
|
---|
Jesuschristonacamel, Quiddity (WMF), DMC511, NottNott, The Mad Monarchist, FiendYT, Timtrent, Ukexpat, Kees08, LukeSurl, DVdm, Guy Macon, Iridescent 2, Adamstom.97, JackofOz, Randomeditor1000, Sjones23, DoctorJoeE, Tomer T, Wario-Man, Flixtey, Zhaofeng Li, Johanna, Ks0alt, Callanecc (alt), Taketa, ☈, KJP1, Nomader, Fred Gandt, Geo Swan, A2soup, Boghog, Lklundin, MargaretRDonald, Davisonio, RexxS, Smirkybec, Naraht, Drkay, Smmurphy, NortyNort, Farmer Brown, This, that and the other, Peripatetic, Jorm, LM2000, Dwergenpaartje, Josh3580, Kanghuitari, Carwil, DGGnyc, Pharmboy, KathrynLybarger, Sanket Edits Wiki, The Gnome |
Vexations ( talk) 02:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, @ Vexations and Insertcleverphrasehere:
This is just to let you know that as you have never used your membership of the New Page Reviewers group, this access has been removed from your account. If this is an error on our part, or if you intend to actively review new pages using the Curation system, please let us know at WT:NPR. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
and there is one for the user right from all editors who have had the user right for 6 months and have made 0 reviews . Let me have that list in the same format. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk)
I removed the (duplicate) names of editors who are already in the list of inactive reviewers. In total, there are 239 reviewers who have not reviewed any articles since 13 March 2018. This filtered list has 183 entries. Vexations ( talk) 03:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, @ Vexations and Insertcleverphrasehere:
This is just to let you know that as you have not used your membership of the New Page Reviewers group in the last 6 months, this access has been removed from your account. If this is an error on our part, or if you intend to actively review new pages using the Curation system, please let us know at WT:NPR. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
reviewer | reviews | last review | Granting date before 14/02/2018 |
---|---|---|---|
Jesuschristonacamel | 0 | None | No |
Quiddity (WMF) | 0 | None | Yes |
DMC511 | 0 | None | Yes |
NottNott | 0 | None | No |
The Mad Monarchist | 0 | None | Yes but alt account of Ad Orientem |
FiendYT | 0 | None | Yes |
Timtrent | 0 | None | Yes |
Ukexpat | 0 | None | Yes |
Kees08 | 0 | None | Yes |
LukeSurl | 0 | None | No |
DVdm | 0 | None | Yes |
Guy Macon | 0 | None | Yes |
Iridescent 2 | 0 | None | Yes but alt of Iridescent |
Adamstom.97 | 0 | None | Yes |
JackofOz | 0 | None | Yes |
Randomeditor1000 | 0 | None | Yes |
Sjones23 | 0 | None | Yes |
DoctorJoeE | 0 | None | Yes |
Tomer T | 0 | None | No |
Wario-Man | 0 | None | Yes |
Flixtey | 0 | None | No |
Zhaofeng Li | 0 | None | Yes |
Johanna | 0 | None | Yes |
Ks0alt | 0 | None | Yes but Alt of Ks0stm |
Callanecc (alt) | 0 | None | Yes but Alt of Callanecc |
Taketa | 0 | None | Yes |
☈ | 0 | None | Yes but Alt of Ks0stm |
KJP1 | 0 | None | Yes |
Nomader | 0 | None | Yes |
Fred Gandt | 0 | None | Yes |
Geo Swan | 0 | None | Yes |
A2soup | 0 | None | Yes |
Boghog | 0 | None | No |
Lklundin | 0 | None | Yes |
MargaretRDonald | 0 | None | No |
Davisonio | 0 | None | No |
RexxS | 0 | None | No |
Smirkybec | 0 | None | No |
Naraht | 0 | None | No |
Drkay | 0 | None | No |
Smmurphy | 0 | None | No |
NortyNort | 0 | None | No |
Farmer Brown | 0 | None | No |
This, that and the other | 0 | None | Yes |
Peripatetic | 0 | None | Yes |
Jorm | 0 | None | Yes |
LM2000 | 0 | None | No |
Dwergenpaartje | 0 | None | No |
Josh3580 | 0 | None | No |
Kanghuitari | 0 | None | Yes |
Carwil | 0 | None | No |
DGGnyc | 0 | None | Yes but Alt of DGG |
Pharmboy | 0 | None | Yes but Alt of Dennis Brown |
KathrynLybarger | 0 | None | Yes |
Sanket Edits Wiki | 0 | None | Yes |
The Gnome | 0 | None | Yes |
Vex's list above does not take into account when the rights were granted to each account. Collapsed above is a list of all the NPRs with zero edits since Nov 2016. Those marked with 'yes' have had the user right longer than 6 months. Note that some are alt acounts of admins. Some on the list especially a lot of those marked 'no' were invited from the active AfC reviewers list a few months ago in an effort to get the AfC reviewers on the NPR train. Given that we still aren't entirely sure where we are going with AfC and NPR, I'd suggest that we leave off removing NPR from users on the active AfC list. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 04:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned by what I see as an action that will likely be controversial given that I do not see authority for it on our guidelines page for the right. Please cite the chapter and verse from Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers which would allow removal. Thanks. -- Izno ( talk) 05:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Per your comments at the NPR noticeboard: As far as I can see you started the Newsletters primarily as a way to send out an alarm to the reviewing team of the growing backlog, I see no reason why these newsletters should not continue and function as a way to disseminate relevant information out to reviewers. I have started drafting a list of useful scripts as part of the next newsletter, which you have no doubt seen, as a way of informing our reviewers of tools that can make their job easier. I havent decided yet, but I may well have that list all or partially collapsed when sent to keep the newsletter from being too large. You keep banging on about inactive reviewers, but there isn't much I can do about the power law distribution of reviewers. We have discussed this at length, but the 80/20 rule will always be true about NPR. Regardless of how much you cull the inactive reviewers, it won't change the curve. If you want a "6 months or lose it rule" for the NPR userright, I suggest that you bring it to the NPR discussion board for a discussion, rather than trying to just impose it unilaterally, or petulantly blanking your user page and giving up your tools when some others objected. As I suspected, some users thought it was a step too far. Admins are supposed to use their discretion to impart consensus, and we don't have consensus for that. Yet. I'm happy to support a 6 month activity rule for NPR if we can get a consensus from the discussion board, and I'll even run the queries regularly to identify inactive reviewers, I just am not confident that such a consensus already exists, and don't want to make a unilateral move like that. Your style of coordination is a bit different than mine, sure, but I'm doing my best here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 01:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, saw you hit new warning filter 928, changed your edit and moved on. We just spun this up a day or so ago and it hasn't gotten many hits yet. We've tried to make it "friendly", was wondering what your impression was when you got this message on your screen? Thanks for any feedback you are willing to share! — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you put ECP to this article back, like you had on 9 May? [12] An SPA keeps returning to disrupt this page by edit warring for restoring his promotional edits and avoids discussion of any of his edits as evident on the talk page itself. [13] This page has been evidently subject to similar promotional edits before. Lorstaking ( talk) 04:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 2 consists of one talk page discussion. Earlier discussions were not archived. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 14:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
It was about Draft:Rachel J. I made an extensive google search for the terms "Rachel J" and "Rachel Jambaya" but couldn't find anything related with/to these names. Currently none of the information on the draft is verifiable. This artist may be popular regionally but that too requires proofs to verify notability. I suggest for moving this page back to mainspace so that I/you can start a potential AfD for it. What do you think? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 04:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the kind reply! Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
You're right but let's summone "@ DGG:" to get his input. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree to WBG and DGG that Kudpung should move it back to mainspace and the start an AfD. Let's see what Kudpung have to say. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Worcestershiresauce bottle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert ( talk) 06:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Kudpung, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
See the issue 8 proof copy here; this is brand new but I posted two of these earlier on the Newsroom talkpage ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Some long overdue WikiLove from me. Thanks for your stoic work on the Signpost - I am a big fan of the WikiPublication. Moreover, allow me to apologise for being so unnecessarily curt towards you in this diff. I misunderstood the meaning of your message, and failed to comprehend the positive intents of the comment. You tried to assist me in participating in Wikipedia's elections, and I was needlessly deaf towards your message. For that, I sincerely (and belatedly) apologise, and hope that this cookie go some way as a token of my regret. Thanks, Stormy clouds ( talk) 21:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I am attempting to have a brief article regarding my project Pylon Reenactment Society (band) entered into Wikipedia. I don’t think it is overblown or unworthy. Why do you continue recommending that it be deleted. There are several interesting facts that link to other music projects from this one including The Glands, Pylon and Casper & the Cookies.
I would appreciate your passing this article for review to someone who has an interest in indie music.
I know you have a lot of time invested on Wikipedia and have given a lot of your time, but I think you are wrong to target my project like this.
Thanks,
Vanessa Briscoe Hay Peaches1955 ( talk) 02:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, it's been a while. Reading through the arbitration report from the Signpost, I started to think that for the sake of transparency, shouldn't the arbitration committee release a monthly report/summary of what has been done during that month? What do you think? It would make a good additional reading I think. Alex Shih ( talk) 15:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Alex Shih, Amorymeltzer, Amorymeltzer, and Guerillero: thanks for your input. I don't know how in the past how all the sections of The Signpost were compiled but I think this is a very good idea because the editorial team absolutely cannt continue to create all the content. If an Arbcom clerk would like tom commit to providing the report regularly on a monthly basis, it would be very much appreciated. 28 August is the copy deadline for the next issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I see an overemphasis on deletion in your talk page and comments. You may want to read this. Cheers, DoctorSpeed Want to talk?
Thank you, DoctorSpeed Want to talk?
Stuff from editor told to go away
|
---|
|
( talk page stalker) If you don't like personal attacks, don't support a president who dishes them out like free candy. Now I need to attend to the washing machine, because there's a distinct smell of footwear here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung, can you please userfy for me Martin Gjoka, if it's not too much trouble? It was deleted back in 2008, but it's definitely notable. I'll see if I can improve it and restart somehow. He is definitively a notable musician. Thanks! -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 21:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Padre Martin Gjoka (1890-1940) was an Albanian composer and Franciscan priest.Please create a new article at Martin Gjoka (draft) in Draft space and then submit it to AfC for review. However, do not translate the article at sq.Wiki because it won't pass notability criteria here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's off-topic for Jbh's RfA, but if somebody dragged Xxanthippe to ANI and proposed a one-way interaction ban with Megalibrarygirl, I would support it. I think I had about 20 emails back and forth with Sue all week about how to handle questions, and in my view she didn't put a foot wrong anywhere, which explains why she got the second most successful RfA of all time. (talk) (cont) 21:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung -- I wanted to let you know that we now have the evolving version of the New Pages Feed up in Test Wiki so that reviewers can try out the feed and bring up issues and ideas as we develop. I'm hoping that this will help our team work closely with the reviewing community. It would be great if you have time to try it out and let us know what you think on the talk page. Thank you. -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 19:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I thought I'd take a look at just how experienced the editors who expressed their opposition at the last RfA were. Perhaps you find this helpful: User:Vexations/lists/RfA_Opposes. I was surprised at how high the median number of edits is: 22,768. I'm in the lower half myself. -- Vexations ( talk) 02:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Wen you see silly votes on an RfA, never hesitate to send them Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters. My standard boilerplate is "Hi, thanks for participating in an RfA. Do take a moment to read THIS, and we look forward to your votes again." Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
For anyone following this thread or my recent series of Admin Ship articles in the last three issues of The Signpost:
Some years ago in 2011, I started and facilitated what still today is the single most in-depth research into RfA. It didn't bring about any changes because after a lot of hard work gathering background information, the on-Wiki efforts began to be trolled so much by the anti-admin brigade that we just gave up. However, apart from the huge mass of data being now slightly out of date, the arguments and suggestions in that project are still as valid as they are today - perhaps even more so: 'Fix the voters and RfA will fix itself' .
People who since then post at
WT:RfA keep coming up with all these ideas as if they were new and they are the first to come up with them.
I didn't provide the stats myself. Although like everyone, I had to do courses on stats at uni, it was in the days when desktop computers were still science fiction, so I later never learned more than the most basic regex, and not at all how to quarry a database.
Our greatest help was
Scottywong who has unfortunately long since retired.
Scott came up with some excellent tables that demonstrate voter trends and patterns which are shown at
WP:RFA2011/VOTING. What would be an enormous help would be to have a new set of tables based, say, on the last three years of RfA voting.
CAN YOU HELP?
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
19:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung! I have read your upcoming story on The Signpost about the Go Fish Digital UPE. It is a great piece and I think it is important to update the community on the issue. Since the story talks about the later discussion on Jimbo's talk page with specific quotes, I would not mind getting credited for finding the link between Go Fish Digital and the BurritoSlayer sockfarm as well as finding a few sockpuppets of the company. If you don't consider the inclusion relevant, I completely understand, it's your piece after all. Best, MarioGom ( talk) 12:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, You recently deleted a page about Bill K Koul, /info/en/?search=Bill_K_Koul. He is an Australian author and editor who has published three books so far and many blogs on his website. How can I improve the page so it can be published in wiki. Thanks and regards, -- Fhb999 ( talk) 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Bill K Koul’s books and blogs, his website, his LinkedIn page, his Facebook page, YouTube and Google. -- Fhb999 ( talk) 03:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
...especially if they are men- I think that nails it. But your apology is accepted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I am thinking of overhauling and resurrecting the NPR school sometime soon. I see you are listed as a trainer over there. Could you check your listing on the trainer list to make sure that it is accurate, or remove the listing if you no longer wish to be a trainer. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 23:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
No we haven't deactivated the inactive users, but we know who they are. Per https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/28967 56 editors with the right haven't reviewed anything since November 2016 (when the NPR user right was rolled out).-- Vexations ( talk) 02:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
list of inactive reviewers
|
---|
Jesuschristonacamel, Quiddity (WMF), DMC511, NottNott, The Mad Monarchist, FiendYT, Timtrent, Ukexpat, Kees08, LukeSurl, DVdm, Guy Macon, Iridescent 2, Adamstom.97, JackofOz, Randomeditor1000, Sjones23, DoctorJoeE, Tomer T, Wario-Man, Flixtey, Zhaofeng Li, Johanna, Ks0alt, Callanecc (alt), Taketa, ☈, KJP1, Nomader, Fred Gandt, Geo Swan, A2soup, Boghog, Lklundin, MargaretRDonald, Davisonio, RexxS, Smirkybec, Naraht, Drkay, Smmurphy, NortyNort, Farmer Brown, This, that and the other, Peripatetic, Jorm, LM2000, Dwergenpaartje, Josh3580, Kanghuitari, Carwil, DGGnyc, Pharmboy, KathrynLybarger, Sanket Edits Wiki, The Gnome |
Vexations ( talk) 02:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, @ Vexations and Insertcleverphrasehere:
This is just to let you know that as you have never used your membership of the New Page Reviewers group, this access has been removed from your account. If this is an error on our part, or if you intend to actively review new pages using the Curation system, please let us know at WT:NPR. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
and there is one for the user right from all editors who have had the user right for 6 months and have made 0 reviews . Let me have that list in the same format. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk)
I removed the (duplicate) names of editors who are already in the list of inactive reviewers. In total, there are 239 reviewers who have not reviewed any articles since 13 March 2018. This filtered list has 183 entries. Vexations ( talk) 03:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, @ Vexations and Insertcleverphrasehere:
This is just to let you know that as you have not used your membership of the New Page Reviewers group in the last 6 months, this access has been removed from your account. If this is an error on our part, or if you intend to actively review new pages using the Curation system, please let us know at WT:NPR. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
reviewer | reviews | last review | Granting date before 14/02/2018 |
---|---|---|---|
Jesuschristonacamel | 0 | None | No |
Quiddity (WMF) | 0 | None | Yes |
DMC511 | 0 | None | Yes |
NottNott | 0 | None | No |
The Mad Monarchist | 0 | None | Yes but alt account of Ad Orientem |
FiendYT | 0 | None | Yes |
Timtrent | 0 | None | Yes |
Ukexpat | 0 | None | Yes |
Kees08 | 0 | None | Yes |
LukeSurl | 0 | None | No |
DVdm | 0 | None | Yes |
Guy Macon | 0 | None | Yes |
Iridescent 2 | 0 | None | Yes but alt of Iridescent |
Adamstom.97 | 0 | None | Yes |
JackofOz | 0 | None | Yes |
Randomeditor1000 | 0 | None | Yes |
Sjones23 | 0 | None | Yes |
DoctorJoeE | 0 | None | Yes |
Tomer T | 0 | None | No |
Wario-Man | 0 | None | Yes |
Flixtey | 0 | None | No |
Zhaofeng Li | 0 | None | Yes |
Johanna | 0 | None | Yes |
Ks0alt | 0 | None | Yes but Alt of Ks0stm |
Callanecc (alt) | 0 | None | Yes but Alt of Callanecc |
Taketa | 0 | None | Yes |
☈ | 0 | None | Yes but Alt of Ks0stm |
KJP1 | 0 | None | Yes |
Nomader | 0 | None | Yes |
Fred Gandt | 0 | None | Yes |
Geo Swan | 0 | None | Yes |
A2soup | 0 | None | Yes |
Boghog | 0 | None | No |
Lklundin | 0 | None | Yes |
MargaretRDonald | 0 | None | No |
Davisonio | 0 | None | No |
RexxS | 0 | None | No |
Smirkybec | 0 | None | No |
Naraht | 0 | None | No |
Drkay | 0 | None | No |
Smmurphy | 0 | None | No |
NortyNort | 0 | None | No |
Farmer Brown | 0 | None | No |
This, that and the other | 0 | None | Yes |
Peripatetic | 0 | None | Yes |
Jorm | 0 | None | Yes |
LM2000 | 0 | None | No |
Dwergenpaartje | 0 | None | No |
Josh3580 | 0 | None | No |
Kanghuitari | 0 | None | Yes |
Carwil | 0 | None | No |
DGGnyc | 0 | None | Yes but Alt of DGG |
Pharmboy | 0 | None | Yes but Alt of Dennis Brown |
KathrynLybarger | 0 | None | Yes |
Sanket Edits Wiki | 0 | None | Yes |
The Gnome | 0 | None | Yes |
Vex's list above does not take into account when the rights were granted to each account. Collapsed above is a list of all the NPRs with zero edits since Nov 2016. Those marked with 'yes' have had the user right longer than 6 months. Note that some are alt acounts of admins. Some on the list especially a lot of those marked 'no' were invited from the active AfC reviewers list a few months ago in an effort to get the AfC reviewers on the NPR train. Given that we still aren't entirely sure where we are going with AfC and NPR, I'd suggest that we leave off removing NPR from users on the active AfC list. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 04:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned by what I see as an action that will likely be controversial given that I do not see authority for it on our guidelines page for the right. Please cite the chapter and verse from Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers which would allow removal. Thanks. -- Izno ( talk) 05:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Per your comments at the NPR noticeboard: As far as I can see you started the Newsletters primarily as a way to send out an alarm to the reviewing team of the growing backlog, I see no reason why these newsletters should not continue and function as a way to disseminate relevant information out to reviewers. I have started drafting a list of useful scripts as part of the next newsletter, which you have no doubt seen, as a way of informing our reviewers of tools that can make their job easier. I havent decided yet, but I may well have that list all or partially collapsed when sent to keep the newsletter from being too large. You keep banging on about inactive reviewers, but there isn't much I can do about the power law distribution of reviewers. We have discussed this at length, but the 80/20 rule will always be true about NPR. Regardless of how much you cull the inactive reviewers, it won't change the curve. If you want a "6 months or lose it rule" for the NPR userright, I suggest that you bring it to the NPR discussion board for a discussion, rather than trying to just impose it unilaterally, or petulantly blanking your user page and giving up your tools when some others objected. As I suspected, some users thought it was a step too far. Admins are supposed to use their discretion to impart consensus, and we don't have consensus for that. Yet. I'm happy to support a 6 month activity rule for NPR if we can get a consensus from the discussion board, and I'll even run the queries regularly to identify inactive reviewers, I just am not confident that such a consensus already exists, and don't want to make a unilateral move like that. Your style of coordination is a bit different than mine, sure, but I'm doing my best here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 01:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, saw you hit new warning filter 928, changed your edit and moved on. We just spun this up a day or so ago and it hasn't gotten many hits yet. We've tried to make it "friendly", was wondering what your impression was when you got this message on your screen? Thanks for any feedback you are willing to share! — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you put ECP to this article back, like you had on 9 May? [12] An SPA keeps returning to disrupt this page by edit warring for restoring his promotional edits and avoids discussion of any of his edits as evident on the talk page itself. [13] This page has been evidently subject to similar promotional edits before. Lorstaking ( talk) 04:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 2 consists of one talk page discussion. Earlier discussions were not archived. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 14:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)