÷

Please sign your message.

Status: Unknown

Archives
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018. —Donner60 (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]


Happy New Year to all my colleagues File:SoleteRayosÑajo.gif

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Patricia

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

Hi Danthemandtm, please see Wikipedia:Edit requests and follow the instructions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promo-stuff

I think Alok Kr. Sharma is looking at an Indef for promo-spam.How do you feel?Winged BladesGodric 10:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I had considered it. Next time though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..The last block was somewhat old:)Winged BladesGodric 10:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, some eyes may be warranted at Rasna Pavithran.Cont. removal of G11 tags.Further, any ideas about Marilyn Barnett?Winged BladesGodric 10:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - I'm on holiday!
Err..Did not know about it! Have a good time:)Winged BladesGodric 11:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rasna Pavithran is a classic example of a page that cannot be BLPPRODed, but certainly is not a candidate for CSD. It's one of those rare cases where 'Move to draft' is perfectly apt. For Marilyn Barnett, read this and you'll know what to do (I assume you are a New Page Reviewer), and if you're still not sure you can ask a question at WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..this seems to imply that I am a NPR and I was one of the most active reviewers at a certain time-span, cumulating around 800 reviews, before taking a break:)I was interested in your opinion about the notab. of the subject, given that many sources were spam.Winged BladesGodric 13:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought perhaps you might be a reviewer, but I couldn't be sure - especially as you were asking my opinion. Well, without going through all the refs, which I won't - that's why we now have nearly 600 reviewers since I created the user right - it has all the blatant hallmarks of UPE, and the creator, Daniel Reid, already has one article deleted for advertising. The action which is the choice of the reviewer, can be gleaned from reading WP:NPP. That said, it will probably end up at COIN. As an admin, my intervention would be unilateral and more severe, but I deliberately leave articles like this to the reviewers so that they learn something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTech page deletion

Hi, Following your message about the deletion of the page LGBTech, I wanted to mention that I had no idea about these limitations. Would it have a negative consequence writing a term about LGBTech in the future? Grembek (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grembek, despite being extremely suopportive of LGBT, I don't think there is a possibility of of us accepting an article about that group any time soon due to notability requirements, eve if the blatant advertising were removed. Also, you as founder would not be able to write it -see WP:COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ubagroup.ci

Regarding Ubagroup.ci you say "Sorry, but this is not CSD A7. This just makes double work for accredited reviewers. I suggest you read WP:NPR and the tutorial and apply for the reviewer right." I have had the right for some years now. It was my understanding that the article was about a non-notable website, my apologies if I was incorrect but I don't think I deserve such a curt admonishment considering my 10 years worth of tireless contributions and being number 29 here Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article had just one single word on it that was nor even related to the title. Let's just put it down to a mouse miss-click then. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded AnetodeLaser brainWorm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and File Move

Hi Kudpung, Happy New Year. Can you please move/rename the newly uploaded image [[File:Russian Offensive to the Oder 12 January to 30 March 1934.gif]] to [[File:Russian Offensive to the Oder 12 January to 30 March 1945.gif]] Change the 34 to 45. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]