Hi Kudpung, many thanks for the swift action on the Wordpress article and their authors. I was wondering if What Everybody Else Does When It Comes To Michael Kors And What You Need To Be Doing Different: Revision history could be related. Similar style of title and contents (different topic), username of author also styled similarly. I checked the link provided - the page seems not to trigger any warnings, but I'll remove the URL now anyway. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if there's some formal procedure for asking for autopatrolled status for another user, but I follow much of what Abu Shawka does in the way of article creation and editing (because his areas of interest are largely a subset of mine) and have every confidence in him as an editor. I ask this because this comment suggests to me that the reviewer is actually less knowledgeable than Abu Shawka, which makes it seem odd to me that the one is reviewing the other. Peter coxhead ( talk) 22:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a friend of Wesley Wolf's and I've noticed that one of the IP addresses, 100.11.59.119 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) who you previously blocked for three months has become active again in the areas where they are banned, particularly the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. I would have reported them again, but I'm less familiar with policy on blocking sockpuppets given the original block wasn't indefinite, so I thought I would take the matter to you and let you deal with it. Thanks. — Tuxipεdia( talk) 22:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
While patrolling the back of the backlog, I've noticed articles appearing there that are redirects recently converted into articles (sometimes content forks) or disambiguation pages (often legitimate). I am pretty sure this is because I have redirects turned off on my page curation list. It worries me however, that this is also likely happening with other redirects that are not on the list of unreviewed articles. If these are not put onto the NPP list, they might not get checked at all and this would represent a major security breach for paid editors and other POV pushers. Is there another way that these articles can easily be found (i.e. redirects modified to be anything other than redirects)? If not, I propose that we suggest a change to page curation, or a bot, that automatically logs pages that are converted redirects as 'unreviewed'. Any ideas? or is there something I've missed that makes this unnecessary? — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 02:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The principle investment partnership of Thumb Capital is a continuation of a fund that has been in operation since January 1, 1988.
Hi - Dr. Seeta Kulkarni (1915-1999) passed away in 1999. Couple of questions, how do we change the page to be for Late Dr. Seeta Sakharam Kulkarni and what are the rules of biography in this case. If you search for "Seeta Sakharam Kulkarni" in books.google.com you will find Dr. Seeta Kulkarni's reference in "Who's who of Indian Writers 1999" by Sahitya Akademi ( /info/en/?search=Sahitya_Akademi) page 640. As you can see she has extensive publications in Marathi language. Here are some details:
Kulkarni, Seeta Sakharam (Smt). K. Vinaya. Marathi writer M.A; B,ED.; PH.D. (all Poona Univ.). Hindi Shikshak Sanad; C.P.ED. (Govt. of Maha.). b.17.7.1915, Kendu, Pune Dist,. Maha. Teaching, retd Teacher, now freelance writing. mt. Marathi. Pubs. 6. Bhaktiparna, 93 (poetry); Ramayan, 90 (crit); Krantiveer Jairam Baba, 73; Vadal Kanya, 94 (both biog.) Visited USA in personal capacity. Add. 1353, Shukrawar Peth, Natu Bagh, opp. Bharat Bhavan, Pune-411002, Maharashtra.
Dr. Seeta Kulkarni was a teacher at MES Waghire High School early in her career (1945-1955). Recently on August 20th 2017 a new auditorium and a division of technical education was dedicated in the name of Dr. Seeta Kulkarni at MES Waghire High School Saswad India ( https://www.facebook.com/meswhs).
Please advise how to proceed. Thanks.
Jitendra
This page should not be speedily deleted because I did not create that article with an intention to promote myself or any of my articles that I have written. The article was pure facts, stating who I am and what I do. The main reason I created the article was that as a sports Journalist, I apply for accreditations for several reasons such as to cover a match or to get an interview with someone of high status. The first thing the organisers do is to do a background check on me simply by doing a Google search. Many times the process for accreditation has been delayed due to the fact that my name isn't really out there on the internet, which forced them to ask me for my credentials for proof that I am a Journalist. This article will help me and the media officers out there to see my full data which is full of facts that had been supported by evidence.
Hi Kudpung - I updated Seeta Kulkarni page based on your suggestions. The automated bot reverted my edits because of External Links I included. The two links included were: "Who's who of Indian Writers 1999" by Sahitya Akademi The Official MES Waghire High School, Saswad Facebook Page I have seen similar linked used in other Wikpedia pages. Can you confirm that these links comply with the policies and advice next steps. Thanks for your help. Jitendra
Greetings, I would like to request the following page be restored please:
/info/en/?search=Jaymie_Valentine
I am happy to help if needed. Thank you. Jellypony ( talk) 03:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
[1] — fortuna velut luna 09:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/41.77.91.207 it has a block but no reason why it was blocked Flow 234 (Nina) talk 22:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Kudpung, I see you blocked IP 2601:5cc:101:5deb:18ec:4581:cb9c:8828, used by Kumioko, for three months. Good call, of course. Generally, a whole /64 range will be allocated to a single user, and in this case it's obvious that all the edits from the 2601:5CC:101:5DEB::/64 range are from the same person. One of those edits was made after your block. [3] I've blocked the whole range, also for three months. Regards, User:Bishonen | talk 07:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC).
Hi -- you're listed as being willing to translate from French to English, so I wonder if I could trouble you to look at a sentence for me -- my French is fairly weak. The sentence (which refers to some failed glacier drilling by Louis Agassiz in the 1840s) is "Digne d'éloges, ils n'ont cependant guère servi qu'à décourager les glaciéristes: les difficultés de l'entreprise leur parurent insurmontables, alors qu'une technique défectueuse leu en exagerait seulement l'importance." Google Translate gives me "They were, however, praiseworthy, but served little to discourage the glaciers: the difficulties of the undertaking seemed insurmountable to them, whereas a faulty technique would only exaggerate their importance." One correction I can make is that "glaciéristes" should be "glaciologists". What I can't tell is whether Flusin is saying that the glaciologists were a little discouraged, or were not discouraged significantly. I can't tell whether "them" refers to Agassiz or the glaciologists referred to; and I don't understand the point of the last clause. If you have time, I'd really appreciate your help with this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Les premiers essais de sondages profonds furent effectués sur l'Unteraagletscher; ils sont dus à Agassiz et remontent à 1840-1842. Digne d'éloges, ils n'ont cependant guère servi qu'à décourager les glaciéristes: les difficultés de l'entreprise leur parurent insurmontables, alors qu'une technique défectueuse leur en exagerait seulement l'importance. Au cours de ses trois campagnes, Agassiz employa uniquement le procédé par "percussion". Aprés avoir, dans ses deux premières campagnes, perfectionné sa méthode, il réussit, en 1842, à forer, en six semaines, un trou de 8 centiètres de diamètre et de 60 mètres de profondeur: les frais et les ennuis furent tels qu'il abandonna ses recherches dans cette voie et que personne ne songea à les reprendre.
So, if i understand i gotta create pages to those not notable groups? But if those groups are not notable enough to have pages, what should i do? (i'm asking for advice, not war ...)
Sorry to bother you, I just want some clarification on this: It says in WP:WikiProject Schools in reference 2 that 'Elementary/primary, and UK prep schools do not normally qualify for Wikipedia articles and will generally be merged by an experienced editor to their respective school district (USA), or locality page'. In this case then, would you say this article is notable? Would it qualify for deletion, or does this represent an exception? I am asking you due to your Coordinator status on WP:WikiProject Schools. Thanks! One Of Seven Billion ( talk) 13:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I went to look for help with German, and you were listed there too, so if you don't mind I have another translation question; my German is worse than my French. The table on p. 69 of this source has some headings I don't understand. What is the difference between Randgebiet and Achsiales Gebiet? And what are the two columns underneath them? I think Bohrung must be the depth of the drilled hole. Is "den Profilen" the expected depth of the hole, based on some calculation? The background is that these holes were drilled to try to establish the thickness of the glacier, and Blümcke and Hess may well have calculated, or had some other grounds for expecting, a certain depth to the bed of the glacier. Another possible issue is that not every hole they drilled actually reached the glacier bed -- mechanical problems sometimes prevented them completing a hole. Perhaps the two columns indicate the difference between the depth of the hole and the depth of the base of the glacier, so the difference is essentially how close they got to the bed. Or perhaps the table only lists the holes that did reach the bed.
Anyway, any help you (or a TPS) can give me would be great. Thanks -- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC) With a bit more work I now think the "den Profilen" is their calculated depths; and Randgebiet/Achsiales Gebiet are holes drilled at the edges of the glacier and in the middle. I still can't tell if this is a list of holes that reached the bed of the glacier, though, so if you can see a clue to that it would be very helpful. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, OTRS is backlogged again and I just now I'm responding to a ticket ticket:2017081610011261 relating to Cambridge International School, Cambridge. This is just a heads up to let you know that I told them that the situation seems currently under control and while they can write to us if problems re-emerge, realistically we don't have our backlog under control and directly contacting you would be advisable. Is let me know if this is not acceptable.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello
We're trying to create a Wikipedia page for Dye & Durham Corporation located in Toronto. It is a 143 year old legal tech company and the page was deleted after creation. Can you please advise on the right process to do this? I have trimmed down all verbiage that may seem promotional but there is definitely something I've been missing. Please help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashrajdhillon ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
These terms do exist, just look them up on google. Otherwise they can just be retitled.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 02:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
solve this issue this is incorporation register company... Ismailim ( talk) 07:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
For taking care of the trolling on my page. Regards, Alex Shih Talk 15:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For your hardwork throughout the years advocating for WP:ACTRIAL, which is now live, you've earned this. I think everyone who is involved with the project recognizes that it wouldn't have happened without you. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
You earned it! ACTRIAL is live and it is largely because you were so diligent for so long to make it happen. Thank-you for your service Kudpung. Legacypac ( talk) 02:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC) |
Thank you so much @ Legacypac, Esquivalience, TonyBallioni, and Jytdog: for the kind words, The people to thank also are all those who voted on the original RFC way back in the day, and Scottywong and The Blade of the Northern Lights who helped craft it. It's been a long road and this is a milestone in the history of Wikipedia whatever the conclusion will be in 6 months time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Kudpung. What part of WP:NPP are you suggesting I need to bone up on? If you have thoughts about how someone else's performance could improve, it's more helpful to be specific than to point vaguely to a very long page, at least most of which the other person probably knows pretty well and has been applying for a long time.
As far as my approach to this article goes, it was a matter of logistics. If I hadn't noticed the copyright problem, I would likely have thought, "This is so promotional", and possibly gone the G12 route. But, as I'm sure you know, if one is able to remove the promotional material in an article without deleting the whole thing, then one isn't supposed to use G12. So, if I had applied G12, there may be admins out there who would have denied it on the grounds that the article could have been trimmed to resolve the promotion problem.
One can use G12 in conjunction with other speedy deletion criteria that apply to the non-promotional parts of an article, but I didn't see that any applied to the portion outside of the synopsis. I would have instantly applied something like A7 or A9 if it were available for books, but there isn't such a thing. So that's why I dealt with the synopsis as a {{ copyvio}} matter, and PRODded the article based on the remainder, in an attempt to avoid wasting everyone's time here. (By the way, even if I'd speedied the article, don't you think that one of the throng above would have removed it?)
Did I miss something obvious or did I just happen to come at this from a different angle than you did and proceed reasonably based on my assessment of the situation? Largoplazo ( talk) 10:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor | |
For whatever work you've done with WP:ACTRIAL, I am most impressed by your willingness to take charge of the situation. The General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor was originally designed by Xiong to recognize this sort of leadership. Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC) |
You mentioned that there are new tools on my request for New page reviewer I am just curious what I am missing out on. Or any advice on what to look at. Thanks Krj373 ( talk) 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krj373-NR ( talk • contribs)
Done: URLs for the article all cleaned up. Thanks.-- Halls4521 ( talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
What's the current thinking on new editors diving head first into doing revert patrol? At one point I think (fuzzy memory) you were trying to figure out a way of actively preventing that; I think I disagreed at the time, but I've come around. If someone with 250 edits is doing a poor job, do I have to threaten them with a disruptive editing block? Or can I point to some guideline or policy or project page that clearly lays out how much experience we expect recent changes patrollers to have?
If I'm confused (for example, now I'm thinking maybe you were more involved in new page patrol than recent changes patrol), then sorry for the orange bar. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
You could copy them and modify them for use on other kinds of patrollers. You just need to remember who you templated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Over at User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof, I believe the edit note on the first revision by the current LTA probably needs hidden. However, the revision itself is already hidden, which appears to stop me from being able to additionally hide the edit note, requiring an oversighter. Am I missing something? -- ferret ( talk) 03:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC).
Because life is better with kitties, on Wikipedia as with the world. (Unless you're allergic to them, in which case... uh, whoops, sorry!)
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello again.
Judging from your activity in a variety of areas, I realize the low importance of this issue. But if you get a chance, I can't decide what to do with Fibre mastic asphalt. It seems to be created by a SPA and is probably promotional, and has no references. But it's not over-the-top so probably not a CSD. PROD would be removed, and it was tagged for MERGE (which has not generated any discussion, but we can't MERGE unreferenced material anyway). Looking for sources, I've found a couple of technical papers discussing fiber in asphalt - [4] and [5]. I could tag it with "unreferenced" and "notablility" which would probably linger for years, or seek broader discussion at AFD. I'm usually not hesitant to go to AFD, but my gut says this may be a "no consensus". If you don't want to spend any more time on this than you have already done by reading this, I'll just have to decide. MB 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung, I'm honestly not sure if I should echo your comments back to you about careful reading, or apologize for inadvertently implying something towards you. Let's just assume that text is liable to miscommunication and faulty presumptions. My comments about wikilawyering, I though I had made clear, were directed to another editor. I think it is clear whom. After re-reading, I can see how there could be other interpretations. In any event, I obviously need not lecture you and I would ask in return for similar courtesy. I understand your intent, and I thank you for it. I don't think that there needs to be any further preservation of that former effort, no matter what the namespace. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for reviewing my article Gaura Census Town without writing improvement remarks. Actually I had Autopatrolled flag but was removed at ANI as I had created the article of Sidharth Slathia which was salted formerly and some copyvio concerns which I swear I didn't did intentionally, though I had properly attributed the quotes but used it excessively which I regret. I created Slathias article as it passed WP:MUSICBIO criteria number 1 and had strong in-depth reliable coverage by Indian news media Hindustan Times, and I have requested it's move on the article of Slathia's talk page. Anyways sir thanks for devoting your valuable time in reviewing my article. Anoptimistix ( talk) 07:29, 17 September 2017
Additional comment - Admin SpacemanSpiff wrote at ANI that I write poor quality of articles despite creating numerous articles, I was initially hurt because of that. But as you reviewed my article without passing improvement remarks I felt I am going at right path and my contributions are well accepted. I had created that article per WP:GEOFEAT (populous and legally recognized). Thanks Kudpung once again, Regards. Anoptimistix ( talk) 07:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I had brought this case at ANI, but was criticised as the user was blocked at that time, I had a valid reason for it, please see the last and clear warning with evidences given by Admin Swarm to them [6] , but as they are now unblocked they again rewrote the word "greatest" and removed the maintenance tag "fansite" on Ahmed Rushdi's article, please see diff [7]. They have also added another unverified puffery after they got unblocked please see this [8] , they have deliberately cited a reliable source ( Times of India) which never supported the statement, the same disruptive editing and decieving concerns were expressed about the user by prolific admin Swarm. Is this appropriate as the user is aware of peacock guide and is here for 6 years, clearly knows what is encyclopedic and what is not. The source Times of India [9], never supported that statement in their coverage, despite knowing about it they have cited it to support the puffery. Kudpung if you think it's fine thanks please ignore this message
And from the above provided evidence my suspicion stands true. Anoptimistix ( talk) 09:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
Winged Blades of Godric You are very good human as well as good editor so I will surely reply ! I have presented the evidence, this was clear deception, the user have deliberately used Times of India as it is considered as RS to support a statement which TOI never stated. And about autoreviewer rights I had requested it as most of my creations would remain unreviewed for months and NPP as I wanted to help newbies new creations by citing in-depth coverages and marking it as reviewed per Notability policies, which I honestly did. And I have answered most of the queries there and frankly speaking I feel I am addicted to this place so I am happing contributing with or without rights :) Anoptimistix ( talk) 13:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Good morning, I have found and added the birth year for entry Joya Powell. Thank you.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I really wish some of our most ambiguous PAGs could be clarified, such as canvassing. Here's my question - if a reviewer tagged an article for questionable notability, and another reviewer takes it to AfD, can the latter inform the former of the action or would that be considered canvassing. Atsme 📞 📧 17:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
TomMcAllen ( talk) 18:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Hello, Since you have deleted the page I wanted to create. I'd like to contest the deletion by adding the following.
Geopolicity Inc. is an international consulting group that works in fragile and developing countries. I think its work, as a firm is quite interesting for the international and internet community because of all its development work that can also be perceived as having a humanitarian side. I see no reason why it cannot be presented to Wikipedia, its users and the world wide web individuals [that access it].
Also, various other companies are on Wikipedia, like the Eurasia Group, Control Risks, Rubini Global Economics, Le Beck International, and the Economist Intelligence Unit — therefore this is completely un-transparent and unfair towards other firms and companies.
Just so you know, Kudpung4 is a four month-old account making their first edit today. I'm not sure how much I should AGF versus assume this was deliberate. Please advise. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for contacting you here. The ArbCom case is closed. Comments that try to undo my contribution in the project should not be welcome though. The comment in question should probably be removed from the revsion history. The comment is not just about a disagreement on approach which could be and is understandable. It's a comment that tries to underestimate my contribution to the project the last five (5) years. As you see I don't question the ArbCom decision and I am very happy that the ArbCom did not inherit those characterisations against me. Best, Magioladitis ( talk) 12:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I indirectly mentioned you at ANI in the thread Blanking sockmaster's userpage allowed? Obviously I think it is allowed and you did nothing wrong; however, I was reverted in an incident. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
U. T. Downs appears to have been created before he was banned, so is not eligible for a speedy deletion. Please take it to AFD. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I have no confidence that this editor will ever edit constructivly, and it clearly looks like this should be a case of a WP:NOTHERE block, so I'm not sure why you only temporarly blocked them. I ask this because I'm pretty sure most administration would have blocked this account indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Thanks. 172.58.46.238 ( talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I saw you speedy deleted this article and I am the editor who started the AFD. The article was created by banned editor Billy Hathorn but this article was around a while, been at AFD once before(I didn't know that till today) and I even edited once about a year. BH on at least three occasions has had a second biography in an article about someone. I removed the second biography which was a substantial edit.
The speedy delete I think was wrong but I feel the article should be deleted. I'm just here to let you know. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh 666 19:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nickelodeon22222.Quite inclined to have a mop!Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks once again, this time for reviewing my creation Bandh Dih, Grateful. Anoptimistix ( talk) 12:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I decided that this was one of the rare occasions when changing another editor's talk page post was justified. In the almost inconceivable event that you disagree, let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
For your work not only as an admin but as a NPR (and I don't mean national public radio). Cheers!
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia
ᐐT₳LKᐬ
13:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Kudpung , occasionally we get import requests for pages that aren't the highest quality. We usually shunt these to sandboxes or drafts to get worked on, but occasionally they get imported to article space. A recent example is CODE_University_of_Applied_Sciences. Imports are relatively rare, but they will generally get marked autopatrolled as a side effect of the process. Is "marking unreviewed" sufficient to get this in to the NPR queue? (After marking unreviewed I see it in Special:NewPagesFeed and it has a meta noindex,nofollow tag now). Thanks for any insight! — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, Can you delete these images please?
First five are maps, that have been converted in maps, in the map room. 6 doesn't show what it is supposed too. 7. Has a bundle of mistakes which are fixed, using help from ref desk. Thanks. 21:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi
After my 'major screw-up' on some of my BLP reviews at AfC, I have made a list of all the reviews I did to make it easier for your investigation, as you put it. This: User:Aguyintobooks/NPP Log page shows all the AfC drafts I accepted (but not those I declined), and all the NPP patrols (including those I nominated for deletions).
--- Α Guy Into Books™ § ( Message) - 09:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Kudpung. The IP address you blocked earlier today, for "incorrect use of [db-g12]", was me, editing while logged out (on the rare occasions I edit from my phone, I don't log in). I find such editing very difficult—copying snippets of text from articles, pasting it in in quotes into Google; navigate back; write the nomination with its non-standard markup hard to find on secondary menus of the phone "keyboard"; copy the CSD notice template, paste to the user's talk page, etc.—a two minute job from a desktop computer is a twenty minute struggle).
Anyway, both pages that I marked as infringing, were indeed copyvios. The entire career section from Sadeka Halim (i.e., the main body of the article) was word-for-word ripped from here—the pdf I had tagged as a copyvio of. Likewise with Deirdre Beddoe, though my note in the tagging acknowledged that I was not capable of doing a thorough check from my phone for other sources of copying (which there were). In fact, the user acknowledged their copying on the talk page by saying they had rewritten the pasted content, after my tagging, though there was still infringement remaining, after the supposed removal by the user, that I've now taken care of. (There's no need to undo the block; that's just some IP address my phone cadged onto earlier today, for the location I was traversing in Manhattan).
I know you might feel a bit chagrined. I'm not here for that! Just take this as a gut check. A truly new user who was blocked in like circumstances, might feel bitten, and I know you care about that. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Kudpung,
thanks for your message on my talk page. You're right, the article about Johannes Paulmann is a translation. I added a note on the article's talk page Talk:Johannes Paulmann, just as you suggested. I also used the translation template in the article itself. I hope I did it in a proper way this time and that this is now adequate to indicate the translation? Next time I'll try to be more accurate right from the beginning and I'd like to say sorry for being a little careless when doing the article. Best regards Geripptes Glas ( talk) 12:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Through that mechanism, the missing attribution is added where it belonged in the first place, directly in the page history of the article. I have taken care of this in this edit. You can read more about this at WP:RIA. I included in the explanation page for dummy edits I linked a variety of suggested repair edit summaries for this purpose. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, many thanks for the swift action on the Wordpress article and their authors. I was wondering if What Everybody Else Does When It Comes To Michael Kors And What You Need To Be Doing Different: Revision history could be related. Similar style of title and contents (different topic), username of author also styled similarly. I checked the link provided - the page seems not to trigger any warnings, but I'll remove the URL now anyway. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if there's some formal procedure for asking for autopatrolled status for another user, but I follow much of what Abu Shawka does in the way of article creation and editing (because his areas of interest are largely a subset of mine) and have every confidence in him as an editor. I ask this because this comment suggests to me that the reviewer is actually less knowledgeable than Abu Shawka, which makes it seem odd to me that the one is reviewing the other. Peter coxhead ( talk) 22:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a friend of Wesley Wolf's and I've noticed that one of the IP addresses, 100.11.59.119 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) who you previously blocked for three months has become active again in the areas where they are banned, particularly the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. I would have reported them again, but I'm less familiar with policy on blocking sockpuppets given the original block wasn't indefinite, so I thought I would take the matter to you and let you deal with it. Thanks. — Tuxipεdia( talk) 22:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
While patrolling the back of the backlog, I've noticed articles appearing there that are redirects recently converted into articles (sometimes content forks) or disambiguation pages (often legitimate). I am pretty sure this is because I have redirects turned off on my page curation list. It worries me however, that this is also likely happening with other redirects that are not on the list of unreviewed articles. If these are not put onto the NPP list, they might not get checked at all and this would represent a major security breach for paid editors and other POV pushers. Is there another way that these articles can easily be found (i.e. redirects modified to be anything other than redirects)? If not, I propose that we suggest a change to page curation, or a bot, that automatically logs pages that are converted redirects as 'unreviewed'. Any ideas? or is there something I've missed that makes this unnecessary? — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 02:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The principle investment partnership of Thumb Capital is a continuation of a fund that has been in operation since January 1, 1988.
Hi - Dr. Seeta Kulkarni (1915-1999) passed away in 1999. Couple of questions, how do we change the page to be for Late Dr. Seeta Sakharam Kulkarni and what are the rules of biography in this case. If you search for "Seeta Sakharam Kulkarni" in books.google.com you will find Dr. Seeta Kulkarni's reference in "Who's who of Indian Writers 1999" by Sahitya Akademi ( /info/en/?search=Sahitya_Akademi) page 640. As you can see she has extensive publications in Marathi language. Here are some details:
Kulkarni, Seeta Sakharam (Smt). K. Vinaya. Marathi writer M.A; B,ED.; PH.D. (all Poona Univ.). Hindi Shikshak Sanad; C.P.ED. (Govt. of Maha.). b.17.7.1915, Kendu, Pune Dist,. Maha. Teaching, retd Teacher, now freelance writing. mt. Marathi. Pubs. 6. Bhaktiparna, 93 (poetry); Ramayan, 90 (crit); Krantiveer Jairam Baba, 73; Vadal Kanya, 94 (both biog.) Visited USA in personal capacity. Add. 1353, Shukrawar Peth, Natu Bagh, opp. Bharat Bhavan, Pune-411002, Maharashtra.
Dr. Seeta Kulkarni was a teacher at MES Waghire High School early in her career (1945-1955). Recently on August 20th 2017 a new auditorium and a division of technical education was dedicated in the name of Dr. Seeta Kulkarni at MES Waghire High School Saswad India ( https://www.facebook.com/meswhs).
Please advise how to proceed. Thanks.
Jitendra
This page should not be speedily deleted because I did not create that article with an intention to promote myself or any of my articles that I have written. The article was pure facts, stating who I am and what I do. The main reason I created the article was that as a sports Journalist, I apply for accreditations for several reasons such as to cover a match or to get an interview with someone of high status. The first thing the organisers do is to do a background check on me simply by doing a Google search. Many times the process for accreditation has been delayed due to the fact that my name isn't really out there on the internet, which forced them to ask me for my credentials for proof that I am a Journalist. This article will help me and the media officers out there to see my full data which is full of facts that had been supported by evidence.
Hi Kudpung - I updated Seeta Kulkarni page based on your suggestions. The automated bot reverted my edits because of External Links I included. The two links included were: "Who's who of Indian Writers 1999" by Sahitya Akademi The Official MES Waghire High School, Saswad Facebook Page I have seen similar linked used in other Wikpedia pages. Can you confirm that these links comply with the policies and advice next steps. Thanks for your help. Jitendra
Greetings, I would like to request the following page be restored please:
/info/en/?search=Jaymie_Valentine
I am happy to help if needed. Thank you. Jellypony ( talk) 03:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
[1] — fortuna velut luna 09:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/41.77.91.207 it has a block but no reason why it was blocked Flow 234 (Nina) talk 22:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Kudpung, I see you blocked IP 2601:5cc:101:5deb:18ec:4581:cb9c:8828, used by Kumioko, for three months. Good call, of course. Generally, a whole /64 range will be allocated to a single user, and in this case it's obvious that all the edits from the 2601:5CC:101:5DEB::/64 range are from the same person. One of those edits was made after your block. [3] I've blocked the whole range, also for three months. Regards, User:Bishonen | talk 07:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC).
Hi -- you're listed as being willing to translate from French to English, so I wonder if I could trouble you to look at a sentence for me -- my French is fairly weak. The sentence (which refers to some failed glacier drilling by Louis Agassiz in the 1840s) is "Digne d'éloges, ils n'ont cependant guère servi qu'à décourager les glaciéristes: les difficultés de l'entreprise leur parurent insurmontables, alors qu'une technique défectueuse leu en exagerait seulement l'importance." Google Translate gives me "They were, however, praiseworthy, but served little to discourage the glaciers: the difficulties of the undertaking seemed insurmountable to them, whereas a faulty technique would only exaggerate their importance." One correction I can make is that "glaciéristes" should be "glaciologists". What I can't tell is whether Flusin is saying that the glaciologists were a little discouraged, or were not discouraged significantly. I can't tell whether "them" refers to Agassiz or the glaciologists referred to; and I don't understand the point of the last clause. If you have time, I'd really appreciate your help with this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Les premiers essais de sondages profonds furent effectués sur l'Unteraagletscher; ils sont dus à Agassiz et remontent à 1840-1842. Digne d'éloges, ils n'ont cependant guère servi qu'à décourager les glaciéristes: les difficultés de l'entreprise leur parurent insurmontables, alors qu'une technique défectueuse leur en exagerait seulement l'importance. Au cours de ses trois campagnes, Agassiz employa uniquement le procédé par "percussion". Aprés avoir, dans ses deux premières campagnes, perfectionné sa méthode, il réussit, en 1842, à forer, en six semaines, un trou de 8 centiètres de diamètre et de 60 mètres de profondeur: les frais et les ennuis furent tels qu'il abandonna ses recherches dans cette voie et que personne ne songea à les reprendre.
So, if i understand i gotta create pages to those not notable groups? But if those groups are not notable enough to have pages, what should i do? (i'm asking for advice, not war ...)
Sorry to bother you, I just want some clarification on this: It says in WP:WikiProject Schools in reference 2 that 'Elementary/primary, and UK prep schools do not normally qualify for Wikipedia articles and will generally be merged by an experienced editor to their respective school district (USA), or locality page'. In this case then, would you say this article is notable? Would it qualify for deletion, or does this represent an exception? I am asking you due to your Coordinator status on WP:WikiProject Schools. Thanks! One Of Seven Billion ( talk) 13:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I went to look for help with German, and you were listed there too, so if you don't mind I have another translation question; my German is worse than my French. The table on p. 69 of this source has some headings I don't understand. What is the difference between Randgebiet and Achsiales Gebiet? And what are the two columns underneath them? I think Bohrung must be the depth of the drilled hole. Is "den Profilen" the expected depth of the hole, based on some calculation? The background is that these holes were drilled to try to establish the thickness of the glacier, and Blümcke and Hess may well have calculated, or had some other grounds for expecting, a certain depth to the bed of the glacier. Another possible issue is that not every hole they drilled actually reached the glacier bed -- mechanical problems sometimes prevented them completing a hole. Perhaps the two columns indicate the difference between the depth of the hole and the depth of the base of the glacier, so the difference is essentially how close they got to the bed. Or perhaps the table only lists the holes that did reach the bed.
Anyway, any help you (or a TPS) can give me would be great. Thanks -- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC) With a bit more work I now think the "den Profilen" is their calculated depths; and Randgebiet/Achsiales Gebiet are holes drilled at the edges of the glacier and in the middle. I still can't tell if this is a list of holes that reached the bed of the glacier, though, so if you can see a clue to that it would be very helpful. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, OTRS is backlogged again and I just now I'm responding to a ticket ticket:2017081610011261 relating to Cambridge International School, Cambridge. This is just a heads up to let you know that I told them that the situation seems currently under control and while they can write to us if problems re-emerge, realistically we don't have our backlog under control and directly contacting you would be advisable. Is let me know if this is not acceptable.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello
We're trying to create a Wikipedia page for Dye & Durham Corporation located in Toronto. It is a 143 year old legal tech company and the page was deleted after creation. Can you please advise on the right process to do this? I have trimmed down all verbiage that may seem promotional but there is definitely something I've been missing. Please help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashrajdhillon ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
These terms do exist, just look them up on google. Otherwise they can just be retitled.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 02:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
solve this issue this is incorporation register company... Ismailim ( talk) 07:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
For taking care of the trolling on my page. Regards, Alex Shih Talk 15:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For your hardwork throughout the years advocating for WP:ACTRIAL, which is now live, you've earned this. I think everyone who is involved with the project recognizes that it wouldn't have happened without you. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
You earned it! ACTRIAL is live and it is largely because you were so diligent for so long to make it happen. Thank-you for your service Kudpung. Legacypac ( talk) 02:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC) |
Thank you so much @ Legacypac, Esquivalience, TonyBallioni, and Jytdog: for the kind words, The people to thank also are all those who voted on the original RFC way back in the day, and Scottywong and The Blade of the Northern Lights who helped craft it. It's been a long road and this is a milestone in the history of Wikipedia whatever the conclusion will be in 6 months time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Kudpung. What part of WP:NPP are you suggesting I need to bone up on? If you have thoughts about how someone else's performance could improve, it's more helpful to be specific than to point vaguely to a very long page, at least most of which the other person probably knows pretty well and has been applying for a long time.
As far as my approach to this article goes, it was a matter of logistics. If I hadn't noticed the copyright problem, I would likely have thought, "This is so promotional", and possibly gone the G12 route. But, as I'm sure you know, if one is able to remove the promotional material in an article without deleting the whole thing, then one isn't supposed to use G12. So, if I had applied G12, there may be admins out there who would have denied it on the grounds that the article could have been trimmed to resolve the promotion problem.
One can use G12 in conjunction with other speedy deletion criteria that apply to the non-promotional parts of an article, but I didn't see that any applied to the portion outside of the synopsis. I would have instantly applied something like A7 or A9 if it were available for books, but there isn't such a thing. So that's why I dealt with the synopsis as a {{ copyvio}} matter, and PRODded the article based on the remainder, in an attempt to avoid wasting everyone's time here. (By the way, even if I'd speedied the article, don't you think that one of the throng above would have removed it?)
Did I miss something obvious or did I just happen to come at this from a different angle than you did and proceed reasonably based on my assessment of the situation? Largoplazo ( talk) 10:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor | |
For whatever work you've done with WP:ACTRIAL, I am most impressed by your willingness to take charge of the situation. The General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor was originally designed by Xiong to recognize this sort of leadership. Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC) |
You mentioned that there are new tools on my request for New page reviewer I am just curious what I am missing out on. Or any advice on what to look at. Thanks Krj373 ( talk) 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krj373-NR ( talk • contribs)
Done: URLs for the article all cleaned up. Thanks.-- Halls4521 ( talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
What's the current thinking on new editors diving head first into doing revert patrol? At one point I think (fuzzy memory) you were trying to figure out a way of actively preventing that; I think I disagreed at the time, but I've come around. If someone with 250 edits is doing a poor job, do I have to threaten them with a disruptive editing block? Or can I point to some guideline or policy or project page that clearly lays out how much experience we expect recent changes patrollers to have?
If I'm confused (for example, now I'm thinking maybe you were more involved in new page patrol than recent changes patrol), then sorry for the orange bar. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
You could copy them and modify them for use on other kinds of patrollers. You just need to remember who you templated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Over at User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof, I believe the edit note on the first revision by the current LTA probably needs hidden. However, the revision itself is already hidden, which appears to stop me from being able to additionally hide the edit note, requiring an oversighter. Am I missing something? -- ferret ( talk) 03:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC).
Because life is better with kitties, on Wikipedia as with the world. (Unless you're allergic to them, in which case... uh, whoops, sorry!)
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello again.
Judging from your activity in a variety of areas, I realize the low importance of this issue. But if you get a chance, I can't decide what to do with Fibre mastic asphalt. It seems to be created by a SPA and is probably promotional, and has no references. But it's not over-the-top so probably not a CSD. PROD would be removed, and it was tagged for MERGE (which has not generated any discussion, but we can't MERGE unreferenced material anyway). Looking for sources, I've found a couple of technical papers discussing fiber in asphalt - [4] and [5]. I could tag it with "unreferenced" and "notablility" which would probably linger for years, or seek broader discussion at AFD. I'm usually not hesitant to go to AFD, but my gut says this may be a "no consensus". If you don't want to spend any more time on this than you have already done by reading this, I'll just have to decide. MB 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung, I'm honestly not sure if I should echo your comments back to you about careful reading, or apologize for inadvertently implying something towards you. Let's just assume that text is liable to miscommunication and faulty presumptions. My comments about wikilawyering, I though I had made clear, were directed to another editor. I think it is clear whom. After re-reading, I can see how there could be other interpretations. In any event, I obviously need not lecture you and I would ask in return for similar courtesy. I understand your intent, and I thank you for it. I don't think that there needs to be any further preservation of that former effort, no matter what the namespace. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for reviewing my article Gaura Census Town without writing improvement remarks. Actually I had Autopatrolled flag but was removed at ANI as I had created the article of Sidharth Slathia which was salted formerly and some copyvio concerns which I swear I didn't did intentionally, though I had properly attributed the quotes but used it excessively which I regret. I created Slathias article as it passed WP:MUSICBIO criteria number 1 and had strong in-depth reliable coverage by Indian news media Hindustan Times, and I have requested it's move on the article of Slathia's talk page. Anyways sir thanks for devoting your valuable time in reviewing my article. Anoptimistix ( talk) 07:29, 17 September 2017
Additional comment - Admin SpacemanSpiff wrote at ANI that I write poor quality of articles despite creating numerous articles, I was initially hurt because of that. But as you reviewed my article without passing improvement remarks I felt I am going at right path and my contributions are well accepted. I had created that article per WP:GEOFEAT (populous and legally recognized). Thanks Kudpung once again, Regards. Anoptimistix ( talk) 07:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I had brought this case at ANI, but was criticised as the user was blocked at that time, I had a valid reason for it, please see the last and clear warning with evidences given by Admin Swarm to them [6] , but as they are now unblocked they again rewrote the word "greatest" and removed the maintenance tag "fansite" on Ahmed Rushdi's article, please see diff [7]. They have also added another unverified puffery after they got unblocked please see this [8] , they have deliberately cited a reliable source ( Times of India) which never supported the statement, the same disruptive editing and decieving concerns were expressed about the user by prolific admin Swarm. Is this appropriate as the user is aware of peacock guide and is here for 6 years, clearly knows what is encyclopedic and what is not. The source Times of India [9], never supported that statement in their coverage, despite knowing about it they have cited it to support the puffery. Kudpung if you think it's fine thanks please ignore this message
And from the above provided evidence my suspicion stands true. Anoptimistix ( talk) 09:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC).
Winged Blades of Godric You are very good human as well as good editor so I will surely reply ! I have presented the evidence, this was clear deception, the user have deliberately used Times of India as it is considered as RS to support a statement which TOI never stated. And about autoreviewer rights I had requested it as most of my creations would remain unreviewed for months and NPP as I wanted to help newbies new creations by citing in-depth coverages and marking it as reviewed per Notability policies, which I honestly did. And I have answered most of the queries there and frankly speaking I feel I am addicted to this place so I am happing contributing with or without rights :) Anoptimistix ( talk) 13:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Good morning, I have found and added the birth year for entry Joya Powell. Thank you.
Aquariusveritas ( talk) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I really wish some of our most ambiguous PAGs could be clarified, such as canvassing. Here's my question - if a reviewer tagged an article for questionable notability, and another reviewer takes it to AfD, can the latter inform the former of the action or would that be considered canvassing. Atsme 📞 📧 17:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
TomMcAllen ( talk) 18:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Hello, Since you have deleted the page I wanted to create. I'd like to contest the deletion by adding the following.
Geopolicity Inc. is an international consulting group that works in fragile and developing countries. I think its work, as a firm is quite interesting for the international and internet community because of all its development work that can also be perceived as having a humanitarian side. I see no reason why it cannot be presented to Wikipedia, its users and the world wide web individuals [that access it].
Also, various other companies are on Wikipedia, like the Eurasia Group, Control Risks, Rubini Global Economics, Le Beck International, and the Economist Intelligence Unit — therefore this is completely un-transparent and unfair towards other firms and companies.
Just so you know, Kudpung4 is a four month-old account making their first edit today. I'm not sure how much I should AGF versus assume this was deliberate. Please advise. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for contacting you here. The ArbCom case is closed. Comments that try to undo my contribution in the project should not be welcome though. The comment in question should probably be removed from the revsion history. The comment is not just about a disagreement on approach which could be and is understandable. It's a comment that tries to underestimate my contribution to the project the last five (5) years. As you see I don't question the ArbCom decision and I am very happy that the ArbCom did not inherit those characterisations against me. Best, Magioladitis ( talk) 12:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I indirectly mentioned you at ANI in the thread Blanking sockmaster's userpage allowed? Obviously I think it is allowed and you did nothing wrong; however, I was reverted in an incident. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
U. T. Downs appears to have been created before he was banned, so is not eligible for a speedy deletion. Please take it to AFD. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I have no confidence that this editor will ever edit constructivly, and it clearly looks like this should be a case of a WP:NOTHERE block, so I'm not sure why you only temporarly blocked them. I ask this because I'm pretty sure most administration would have blocked this account indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Thanks. 172.58.46.238 ( talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I saw you speedy deleted this article and I am the editor who started the AFD. The article was created by banned editor Billy Hathorn but this article was around a while, been at AFD once before(I didn't know that till today) and I even edited once about a year. BH on at least three occasions has had a second biography in an article about someone. I removed the second biography which was a substantial edit.
The speedy delete I think was wrong but I feel the article should be deleted. I'm just here to let you know. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh 666 19:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nickelodeon22222.Quite inclined to have a mop!Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks once again, this time for reviewing my creation Bandh Dih, Grateful. Anoptimistix ( talk) 12:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I decided that this was one of the rare occasions when changing another editor's talk page post was justified. In the almost inconceivable event that you disagree, let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
For your work not only as an admin but as a NPR (and I don't mean national public radio). Cheers!
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia
ᐐT₳LKᐬ
13:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Kudpung , occasionally we get import requests for pages that aren't the highest quality. We usually shunt these to sandboxes or drafts to get worked on, but occasionally they get imported to article space. A recent example is CODE_University_of_Applied_Sciences. Imports are relatively rare, but they will generally get marked autopatrolled as a side effect of the process. Is "marking unreviewed" sufficient to get this in to the NPR queue? (After marking unreviewed I see it in Special:NewPagesFeed and it has a meta noindex,nofollow tag now). Thanks for any insight! — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, Can you delete these images please?
First five are maps, that have been converted in maps, in the map room. 6 doesn't show what it is supposed too. 7. Has a bundle of mistakes which are fixed, using help from ref desk. Thanks. 21:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi
After my 'major screw-up' on some of my BLP reviews at AfC, I have made a list of all the reviews I did to make it easier for your investigation, as you put it. This: User:Aguyintobooks/NPP Log page shows all the AfC drafts I accepted (but not those I declined), and all the NPP patrols (including those I nominated for deletions).
--- Α Guy Into Books™ § ( Message) - 09:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey Kudpung. The IP address you blocked earlier today, for "incorrect use of [db-g12]", was me, editing while logged out (on the rare occasions I edit from my phone, I don't log in). I find such editing very difficult—copying snippets of text from articles, pasting it in in quotes into Google; navigate back; write the nomination with its non-standard markup hard to find on secondary menus of the phone "keyboard"; copy the CSD notice template, paste to the user's talk page, etc.—a two minute job from a desktop computer is a twenty minute struggle).
Anyway, both pages that I marked as infringing, were indeed copyvios. The entire career section from Sadeka Halim (i.e., the main body of the article) was word-for-word ripped from here—the pdf I had tagged as a copyvio of. Likewise with Deirdre Beddoe, though my note in the tagging acknowledged that I was not capable of doing a thorough check from my phone for other sources of copying (which there were). In fact, the user acknowledged their copying on the talk page by saying they had rewritten the pasted content, after my tagging, though there was still infringement remaining, after the supposed removal by the user, that I've now taken care of. (There's no need to undo the block; that's just some IP address my phone cadged onto earlier today, for the location I was traversing in Manhattan).
I know you might feel a bit chagrined. I'm not here for that! Just take this as a gut check. A truly new user who was blocked in like circumstances, might feel bitten, and I know you care about that. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Kudpung,
thanks for your message on my talk page. You're right, the article about Johannes Paulmann is a translation. I added a note on the article's talk page Talk:Johannes Paulmann, just as you suggested. I also used the translation template in the article itself. I hope I did it in a proper way this time and that this is now adequate to indicate the translation? Next time I'll try to be more accurate right from the beginning and I'd like to say sorry for being a little careless when doing the article. Best regards Geripptes Glas ( talk) 12:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Through that mechanism, the missing attribution is added where it belonged in the first place, directly in the page history of the article. I have taken care of this in this edit. You can read more about this at WP:RIA. I included in the explanation page for dummy edits I linked a variety of suggested repair edit summaries for this purpose. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)