Thanks for reviewing Nabi Jaloliddin, Cabayi.

Unfortunately Kudpung has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I have declined the CSD, not because it was wrong or a wrong criterion, but because no criteria were given. You may have been right about it needing to be deleted - could you go back and take another loo?

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 12:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I don't get what you're on about. I nominated the page for deletion A7/G11. The note of deletion at Nabi Jaloliddin, the record in my CSD log and the notice on the author's talk page ALL show A7/G11. Given that the article's been deleted I'm in no position to say what happened there, but I don't believe Twinkle is prone to marking all the other aspects A7/G11 and leaving the article itself with an unadorned ((db-reason)). The lack of signature on your unreview notice gives the impression something's gone wrong with your unreviewing process.

Also, "To reply"... No. You started the discussion here. I'm not splitting the discussion across the wiki. Cabayi (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot... I also created ((Contrib-uz1‎)) and ((Contrib-tg1‎)) for this author's autobiographies (this article and his U5 userpage). I don't think anything was overlooked on this case. Cabayi (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, hey - just try to AGF for a second, OK? We're all in this together, so it's not my process. and I didn't write the template messages. It's not best to be using Twinkle anyway and there are always going to be clashes between Twinkle and the million dollar software the WMF made for us W A Y back in 2011 to patrol pages properly. Let me look into it - I have the time and energy if others haven't, and I have the back door key to the WMF engineering department canteen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, Well pardon me for being complete in describing the discrepancies. There was no lack of AGF, just WTF. None of the assertions in the massage correspond with the facts.

I tried the new toy and don't like it. It makes NPP too like whac-a-mole. And by the appearance of this message, it's not reliable either. Cabayi (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'WTF' is the language I expect from you people, especially as Twinkle is 'the whack-a-mole barnyard. Right, here's the log which you are not normally allowed to see:

(diff) 19:40, October 13, 2016 . . PamD (talk | contribs | block) (1,279 bytes) (restoring the CSD tag which the creating editor spoiled by removing the criteria so that a later editor removed it as having no criteria!)
(diff) 19:30, October 13, 2016 . . Melcous (talk | contribs | block) (1,256 bytes) (copyedit and cleanup)
(diff) 19:29, October 13, 2016 . . Melcous (talk | contribs | block) (1,625 bytes) (Added ((BLP sources)), ((autobiography)), ((no footnotes)), ((notability)) and ((third-party)) tags (within ((multiple issues))), and ((uncategorized)) tag to article (TW))
(diff) 19:14, October 13, 2016 . . Kudpung (talk | contribs | block) (1,384 bytes) (decline CSD - no criteria given)
(diff) 19:09, October 13, 2016 . . Nabi Jaloliddin (talk | contribs | block) (1,399 bytes) (→‎Nabi Jaloliddin) (Tags: reference list removal, Visual edit)

When I arrived there was a large bold red alert across the CSD tag sayig 'No valid CSD criteria;'. Back to work everyone - drama over. (Thank you PamD)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Kudpung, you people ????? Cabayi (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread. Cabayi (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I hope that now the drama is past we can look at this again and clear up (what looks like, from my viewpoint) the mutual misunderstandings on this issue.

Firstly, my sincere condolences on the loss of your father.

The issues here arose from your initial message which struck me as out-of-sorts because of four points:

1. my CSD was characterised as having no reason when I KNEW it had been done correctly, and a cursory check of my CSD log and the author's talk page confirmed my memory;
2. the message was unsigned;
3. the message invited a continuation of the discussion at your talk page; and
4. there was no edit summary to indicate the message came from Page Curation, or indeed to indicate anything about the action.

The first peculiarity I could pass over as an WP:AGF mistake. Combined with the other three points, which run contrary to the standard etiquette of wiki-discussions, my curiosity was piqued - which I could, and should, have expressed better than WTF. You have my apologies for that.

As you suggested, the message could have come from a template. However, when I look at the source, there's neither a transcluded template nor the template name in an HTML comment that usually comes with a subst'ed template.

When I referred to "your unreviewing process" I didn't have Page Curation in mind. I often use AutoHotkey to paste in recurrent chunks of text like "English please <tab> ((subst:contrib-1)) ~~~~". I thought perhaps you were using some similar tool which had failed you somehow.

It didn't occur to me that Page Curation could still be so out-of-step with the norms of behaviour on enwiki 4 years after its introduction. Perhaps if it were to use templates rather than boilerplate text which requires the back door key to the WMF engineering department canteen it would have been corrected before now. I hope you can use your access & influence to bring the Page Curation process into line with en-wiki's norms.

Even the edit-filters, which are necessarily opaque, offer a better clues about their actions than Page Curation's unreview message.

I'm still bemused by what was meant by you people but hope I've clarified where I was coming from. Cabayi (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page Curation is not out of step. Many of the people who patrol pages are though. That's why we've just introduced a user right for it. Add to that the fact that some Wikipedians (me, for example) sre not computer freaks - we just use what we are given for the purpose of populating the content of an encyclopedia and keeping the trash out of it. Sorry about my 'you people' but I never use expletives and in most collaborative situations I find it not necessary - call me old-fashioned perhaps, but I have a knack of getting things done around here. Your comments concerning the function of these software tools are more than welcome - I've even created an entire, fairly lively project for it at WP:NPPAFC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you put a speedy on Elizabeth Koshy (actress), looks like another person made the same article as Liza Koshy. Looks like a SPI probably. Wgolf (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf, Special:WhatLinksHere/Liza Koshy and, to a lesser extent, Special:WhatLinksHere/Elizabeth Koshy (actress) point to the speedy notifications on several users' pages. Looks like you've got a plausible case for an SPI there.

The comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This is SportsCenter seem to show an editor who's sufficiently annoyed to try a bit of puppetry. Cabayi (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of coincidence that I share same family name with him but he is completely unrelated to me. His novel is the 1st novel to receive Madan Prize. So, I thought he deserves a place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thapa Kazi999 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thapa Kazi999, Given the number of other "Thapa" articles you've edited it seems more a matter of choice rather than coincidence. I'm not going to be the only editor to notice the connection and look more closely at your edits because of it. I don't see anything wrong, indeed Leeladhwaj Thapa seems the kind of person the english wiki often overlooks, but you are going to draw closer scrutiny. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes I am very new to content editing. I plan to stay quite a while. Willhire (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nothing Was the Same. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabayi. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

 Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabayi:

I'm responding to your note on my talk page, and am assuming that you nominated my article for speedy deletion - although I admit, it was my first and I'm not certain how all of this works just yet. Can you help me out by answering a few questions please:

1. I did "contest" the speedy deletion - but am unsure what the process is there. Can you enlighten me? Is this up to you to determine, or do other editors make this decision?

2. Although I honestly don't agree with the reasons that this was nominated for speedy deletion (I truly did read all the guidelines before, and even modeled my article after several similar articles just to be sure), can I go back and re-edit the articles while it is waiting in "speedy deletion" status?

3. I admit, given that I did absolutely copy the pattern and format for at least 3 other articles, I'm confused as to why my article was nominated for deletion? Why allow similar articles about other companies and patents, and not this one? Can you offer any perspective here? Can I submit those examples for comparison?

I do appreciate any insight you can offer. Thanks very much. JLK0221Jlk0221 (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jlk0221, tackling your questions in order:

1. I'm just a regular editor. I thought the article as I saw it didn't establish the notability of the company and the choice of source material veered toward the promotional. The WP:CSD process allows anybody (except you, the author) to remove the nomination if they disagree, and an administrator to delete the article if they agree with the nomination. Ariconte disagreed and removed the CSD. I don't feel so strongly that I would contest his action.
2. Any attempt to improve the article while it's tagged is positively encouraged - after all, our objective is a fully rounded encyclopedia. Improving the encyclopedia by improving the article is preferable to improvement by deletion.
3. Comparison to other articles can be a two-edged sword. It may just result in the other articles being nominated for deletion as well. The argument is unflatteringly known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and I think the effectiveness of the argument is pretty accurately reflected in its title.

Personally I don't feel that 2 datacentres and 7 patents establish notability. The sources don't strike me as neutral or independent reliable sources - they seem to be press releases published in trade press and listings-type mentions (Bloomberg Businessweek lists everybody, it doesn't make any distinction of notability).

The sectionCompany History looks like it was copied from a corporate hand-out. The list of dates isn't the style wikipedia aims for and many of the "events" listed are trivial and only of any interest if you're trying to promote the business.

That's my 2¢. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]