User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2011

G'day / Thanks re: Natblack10 / Primary Schools

G'day Kudpung. Thanks for your help earlier with Natblack10. I think he's got the message, and I'll help him/her through any further issue.

In regards to primary schools, for example any schools that Natblack10 may feel to add... Yes, I'm aware of the general guidelines regarding schools. You'll note that I've long been one of the participants listed at WP:SCHOOLS (as well as at WP:EIA of course). I'm also aware that there is no strict prohibition against primary schools, particularly because some primary schools are notable for one reason or another. I think that Natblack10 should be given the benefit of the doubt for the time being regarding the primary schools he wants to put up (per WP:AGF); especially if he's just editing in his own userspace, as I've suggested on his/her talk page. Of course, if s/he can't come up with something notable, then I'll guide him through that.

I've been working with a couple of other users (particularly User:Moondyne to align with the rest of the schools project, particularly in regards to the infoboxes. I think Moondyne has proposed the Australian school infoboxes for deletion as they're redundant because we've moved all schools over to tl:Infobox school.

I'm very interested in anything that we end up doing in regards to schools, and am happy to sign up for any help that can be provided from the Australian end of things. Any way to keep posted (besides watching that page; I've currently got ~1000 odd vandalism prone schools on my list)?

Thanks for dropping me a message, and, as I said, don't worry about Natblack10; I'll keep an eye on him/her. -danjel (talk to me) 09:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dan, thanks for your input. You are right that there is no strict rule that primary schools are banned, but long experience and outcomes of some very hard fought AfD (some quite recent that reinforce over again the consensus) has shown that extremely few primary school are able to come up with something that makes them notable. generally; my own criteria would be if they were of special architectural interest either ancient or modern, are very old (like a couple of hundred years) and still going, have received some extraordinarily important national or international award (such as a Duke of Edinburgh Scheme), or have spawned some really notable people,such as a Nobel Prize winner.

It's up to you guys which infobox you use, just let us know at WP:WPSCH so that the guidelines get amended as necessary - or do it yourself of course but leave a message on the talk page because a newsletter has been written that will soon go out to several ten thousand creators and editors of school pages.

As far as Natblack10 is concerned, I've also left message there, but they have taken to blanking their talk page; They apparently have a history of warnings for disruptive editing. Thanks for all your help and take care, Kudpung (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Danj is better. :) I know too many "Dans".

Yeah, I've had this discussion with other people before... The architectural significance issue is something that I'm interested in pursuing for certain Australian public schools, as there are a few that occupy Heritage-listed buildings.

Beyond those points you've suggested, however, I also believe that schools that have specific curricular differences are also interesting. Such as schools that teach bilingually or have extraordinary provisions for gifted students or have interesting foci in their teaching.

I'm thinking of doing some regional pages, rather than linking through to localities generally. Greenwich Public School links through to Greenwich, which is not useful for any encyclopaedic use for the school. I'll agree that the school isn't particularly notable, but an article on North Sydney Region would be, and would be more useful for someone interested in Greenwich PS. Thoughts thoughts. Sorry about the rambling, just thinking out loud.

We're using the Infobox school. Long discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#Template:Infobox_Australia_school_private, with User:Moondyne and I as major participants. Besides one editor who didn't really like what was happening, the consensus was to move to Infobox school. I'll leave a message at the talk page as you've suggested.

I know, I saw that. You be bad cop, I'll be good cop. Heh. We'll see how he goes. It seems he has access to some things which generally aren't publicly accessible ([[1]] which is probably a WP:COPYVIO, for example, isn't something that's usually publicly accessible). So he might be useful if we can bring him on side. Leave me to it.

So. To sum. (1) Going over to drop WP:SCHOOLS a line regarding the infobox; (2) well aware of notability requirements for primary schools; (3) thinking about regions (sorry for thinking out loud); (4) I'm adopting Natblack10.

Happy new year, mate. If I recall correctly, new years in Thailand is.. busy. But, looking forward to working with you in future. -danjel (talk to me) 10:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

All good stuff Danj, nice to see someone down under keeping an eye on things. Kudpung (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Taubman Institute AfD

Thanks for your comments at the AfD. It was started very much in good faith. I realise now that it wasn't the right thing to do; but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Thanks again for not assuming the worst. The comments on there had started to get me down. Yours, even though short, did help to lift my spirits. All the best for 2011. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't discuss the editors or their behaviour on AfD debates, but I would also agree that there was an uncalled for breach of our civility rules. Best thing is not to react, hard as it seems. All the best for 2011 :) Kudpung (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Yes, did you see that Infobox Australian school has been orphaned? Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
Message added 14:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: PNHS

Hi - you're welcome, but this was not vandalism. This is a good-faith editor trying to make an article in a language in which he is clearly not at even an intermediate level. Nonetheless, he's disruptive because he either can't or won't understand the warnings and consider community input. Disruption is different than vandalism, but it's still blockable under the right circumstances, and this is one of those. Hopefully he'll read your message and begin to understand the problem. If not, we have ways to deal with it. :-) Thanks! :-) KrakatoaKatie 06:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know it was not vandalism, but there was no other way at the time to get a quick reaction and a block. Let's hope s/he understands the Tagalog translation.--Kudpung (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Companies proposed deleted

Hi you have proposed some pages I have created to be deleted. I need you to explain me why. Usually my articles are accepted and these articles would definitely be notable at da:wikipedia where I mostly write. --Patchfinder (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite right. The reasons are on the PROD notices that are on your talk page. The articles have been on the English Wikipedia unreferenced for nearly 30 days and no editors have been able to pass them as patrolled. We have stricter rules here that the de.Wiki. You have seven days more to improve them by proving that they are notable and providing references. For more information, you can click all the blue words in this message - they will link you to the relevant policies. --Kudpung (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems like there have come some new rules within the last 1-2 years, so they now are stricter. If I have understand the rules right the article Vestfrost should now meet the requirements. Please give me feedback. --Patchfinder (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi :)

• Talk back. Cheers :) Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Overcategorization

Not strictly familiar with the school overcat you are mentioning, but categories have become (or maybe always were) a bit out of hand. I think this needs tightening but don't know how or where to begin.

In an unrelated topic, a train incident article rolls up into "train accidents" cat, which in turn rolls up into "transportation disasters"! This is just a tiny example. I'm sure you've run into them as well. Student7 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments entirely, and trains is a good example. With schools is goes on ad absurdum. There are several hundred categories, many which simply duplicate each other such as:

• Comprehensive schools, secondary schools, community schools, high schools, which all mean the same thing
• Comprehensive schools in the UK, secondary schools in the UK, community schools in the UK, high schools in the UK, then:
• Comprehensive schools in Scotland, secondary schools in Scotland, community schools in Scotland, high schools in Scotland, then
• Comprehensive schools in Worcestershire, secondary schools in Worcestershire, community schools in Worcestershire, high schools in Worcestershire, then
• Comprehensive schools in Worcester, secondary schools in Worcester, community schools in Worcester, high schools in Worcester, then
• multiply all that by private schools, independent schools, UK public school, which all mean the same thing
• multiply all that by private secondary schools, independent secondary schools, UK public school, etc, etc.

in fact we have several hundred (if not thousands) of cats for schools on Wikipedia, some of which have only one schoo in them. there a re however two ways of looking at it: it's highly granular which (theoretically) makes it easy for someone looking for a specific type of school in a specific locality, but it make our job of creating lists and stats exceptionally complicated. For example, I'm still looking urgently for someone to find a way (using catscan or a bot, whatever) to make a list of the creators of all school articles since 1 January 2008. I know very little about cats and nothing about bost. --Kudpung (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For this example given above, UK schools are a bit more of a problem than US schools. Double the nomenclature, double the problems, as you have pointed out.

I have the sneaking suspicion that if you can collect information with a bot, you can also do a lot of other things, as well. :) They probably keep these close at hand. Indeed, you might glance at Wikipedia:Bots. I suspect that they already have a bot that can be converted for your use. Whether you can talk someone into doing that or not, I don't know. I would be interested in what happens. Alwsys wanted to know a bot expert. Now you're about to become one!  :)

You might try the Village Pump. They may have a suggestion for some method that I can't think of, of doing a "search" on topics or something that is available as a utility. That would be a lot easier, if true. Student7 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not about to become a bot expert - I know nothing about that end of programming ;) I can't even get my old head around catscan, and I can't get anyone to write the grep for me so that I can register the schools project for the NewArticle alert bot. I've already asked a few bot handlers but they have either not replied, or just made alternative suggestions. Nobody seems to realise how important the planned cleanup of schools articles is. Problem with schools is, most of the school articles are created by SPA, kids and teachers, who don't read any guidelines at all, and who rarely come back (at least not to the school article they created). As a result, tens of thousands of school pages are in a terrible mess, exacerbated by the huge number of 'members' we have at the project which is all but dead and which I'm trying to revive. We have a similar problem with school infobox templates. We have 39 where four or five standard ones are more than enough. Like cats, many people think they have to create a new infobox every time. If you have more good suggestions, or want to add fuel to the fire, your comments would be most welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools where the project pages have many more watchers than my talk page. We need as much help and feedback as possible, and I check out the project several times daily. Users/admins/bot handlers/programmers to nudge are User talk:Kingpin13, User talk:Keith D, User talk:Kanguole, User talk:Rich Farmbrough, User talk:Jarry1250, if you feel like a try.--Kudpung (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are over my head! I will record you on my page as being interested in cleanup and copy these folks to a comment on my page for the record, since they will be archived from here eventually. All things are possible in good time! Student7 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

replied

I didn't see any messages for me there. I've started a new thread on embedded links sections. The Transhumanist    02:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in TH. That is exactly what my tb was intended to facilitate :) --Kudpung (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Skippers Hill Manor Preparatory School

Hi there!

Thank you for taking an interest in the article Skippers Hill Manor Preparatory School. I have noticed that you feel it is not notable, however one of the notable alumni (as stated on the page: See Notable Alumni) is an Ashes winning Female English Cricketer, who (I believe, although might be worth reviewing her Wiki article)was the youngest ever woman to join the ladies team - I feel this is very significant. Regards Philip.t.day (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Philip. Articles are usually discussed on the appropriate talk page. Permit me to suggest also that you take no notice of irrelevant comments that contain only half truths from any users who have a disregard for some basic Wikipedia conventions. Talk pages are for discussing articles, not the editors. Best wishes for 2011, --Kudpung (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re. Thanks

Thank you for your comments and for your kind invitation to join the Worcestershire project. Best wishes for 2011.Mhygelle (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Flags and other things

Hey, Kudpung, thanks for the kind words on my Talk page. I hope you understand that I do respect your knowledge. I was just taught at a very early age to question all authority, so I rarely accept anything, no matter who it comes from, unless it makes sense to me.

Honestly, I find many of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies to be daunting in their ambiguities. Perhaps it's a little like legislation where the final product is a compromise of many different people's points of view and therefore has a somewhat unfocused feel to it. I also see this here in the many arguments by editors ranging from inexperiened, to somewhat experienced (probably where I fit in), to very experienced (probably you) as to what the policies mean. Many of these discussions never really reach consensus. Rather, they reach some sort of critical mass where some final wording or usage is adopted simply because it is and everyone is tired of arguing about it.

For example, one such process currently going on right now at BLPN is about the use of Jewish categories. I started the discussion and it has, of course, mushroomed. It's a little like a complex mystery novel. I have no idea how it will turn out - perhaps there will be alternative endings. I do know, however, that these sorts of discussions, which, admittedly, I often instigate, frustrate the hell out of me. In the Jewish discussion, one experienced editor implied I was stupid and accused me of wasting everyone's time. In response to that particular post, I lost my cool a bit, which I rarely do and try hard not to because I'm a great believer in civility, but no one but me remarked on the inappropriateness of his comments. It's times like those that I feel I should abandon my editing efforts here because of the negative emotional impact it has. I sometimes watch the far more circus-like atmosphere at AIN and wonder how can people talk to each other like that. Just the arguments over what is civil and what is not are mind-boggling, at least to me. I'm a big fan of civility in non-Internet life, but in Internet forums, civility is even more important because of how easy it is to forget that we're human beings, not electrons.

Anyway, I've gone on way too long and strayed very far from the flag icon subject. Forgive me for venting. I've posted a further update about the flag thing on EAR.

Thanks for listening.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I find you echoing many of my own sentiments again. Consensus is one of the weird and wonderful ways Wikipedia works. To change anything, we would need a consensus to to change to a different system. Problem is, no one can come up with a better system. We have the same perennial discussion over the grossly unfair way we elect our admins. second problem is like the French meeting: Il faut convoquer une réunion afin de convoquer une réunion - You have to call a meeting to discuss calling a meeting. if you've ever lived and worked in France you'll kow what I mean. However, it seems to work for the French! Don't abandon yet, we're all volunteers here and nothing is worth getting upset about - we all have enough serious issues in real life to contend with :) --Kudpung (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I lived in France a long time ago for a few years. I loved it. Unlike most Americans, I like the French people. Sure, they can be a pain in the ass sometimes, but they don't have a monopoly on that characteristic. I enjoy their willingness to argue without making it personal. Americans, on the other hand, like to settle things in, uh, less civilized ways, the Wild West mentality.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I lived in France permanently for 12 years and still have a home there. My extremely close connections with the country go back nearly 50 years however! I also lived in Germany for 16 years... --Kudpung (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you! I have friends in France whom I visit but no home. I think about retiring there, though, but it would be somewhat complicated. In addition to everything else, it's a beautiful country.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me to communicate with an editor I have a dispute with, without going to comittee?

Greetings,

I noted you made a minor edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constable#Nevada recently and seeing that you are a very active Wikipedia editor, I wonder if you could offer some advice. I am quite new at editing. I was recently elected Constable of the Township of Laughlin, Nevada. I have been correcting and enlarging the article of on Nevada Constables for a few weeks, but someone keeps undoing the edits. Now a few of the changes this editor made were, in fact, worthwhile and one or two seemed like a reasonable compromise. But this editor has simply taken to every other day or so, reverting back to the article as it was about the time I started. I have a few speculations about why they are doing this, but the bottom line as I see it is this. a) this editor does not give reasons for his edits b) his edits constitute what seems to me to be censorship, since he keeps removing, valid facts and c) there seems to be a certain level of advocacy (something I was caught for by an alert editor on another article when I was just starting to do some editing of my own - and that editor was correct. I reworked my edit to be neutral.)

Can you help me to contact this editor without violating their privacy? I've tried leaving a message for him (or her) but have seen no reply and the edits continue, again, without any explanation. I feel I'm justified in undoing major edits done without explanation, but the whole thing seems a little adolescent. I'm trying to use the dispute procedure and it says first try to talk to the other person. Being new, I'm not really sure I've exhausted all possibilities or if I even tried to contact him correctly.

Any help would be appreciated76.0.205.19 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

Jordan Ross, Constable Laughlin, Nevada

Post Script

Oops! Sorry I wasn't logged in when I left that last message and I see you are already ahead of me! Thanks I'll try the talk page22:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Jordan Clements Ross (talk) next. Wish me luck!

Thanks for your comment

"Why does every sports person who has played one professional game, every street musician, every bit part actor, every kid who went on X Factor and Got Talent, and every small town hack and painter merit an article on the flimsiest of sources, while life-long academics have to jump through a whole page of hoops?" I enjoy this quote from your page. I wish you will stick to it --Adumoul (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I will Adumoul, I will :) --Kudpung (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Threats

I am sorry bit I can't see where in Kudpung routinely tags primary school articles for non-notability. In the case of Skippers 'ill I'd say the article is a bit on the thinnish side and indeed most of the refs come from the school's own materials. I am not sure what you can do. The Downs School (Herefordshire) seems to be a good example of what might be required to salvage the matter. there is anything that could be construed as an attack on you. The one mention of you is that I say that you tag articles about primary schools for deletion - which is true. In the case of the QSTSC you tagged it for "non-notability" within minutes of it being added to Wp. As the AfD discussion showed this was a complete waste of everyones time and energy. If you had waited or had actually helped out with the article you would have found that there were plenty of sound refs which attest to the value of the article to Wp. Silent Billy (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For you information I have spent 87 minutes cleaning up the Skpippers article, and it still falls very short of established Wikipedia standards for any article, and will be merged to the page about its locality if its authors or other editors cannot improve it to meet notability requirements. Perhaps you could consider doing the same for some of the articles you comment on, and bearing in mind that Wikipedia policy is to discuss the articles, and not the editors, especially those who are just doing some of the less enviable, but wholly necessary tasks. . --Kudpung (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW: For the benefit of anyone following this thread, QSTSC was an article you created, and it was proposed for: Unremarkable primary (elementary) school. Delete, or merge to Queensland per accepted procedure. (bold text is mine). An AfD is never a waste of time, it is indeed the fairest process applied to any article that any editor may feel might not meet Wikipedia criteria, but which is not a clear candidate for WP:CSD, WP:PROD, or WP:BLPPROD. I admit that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are complex, and sometimes even ambiguous or contradictory, but some knowledge of them is necessary for everyone, as well as the strong recommendation to prepare new articles in one's user space, and then posting them to main space when there is little or no likelihood of them being tagged. I hope this helps.Kudpung (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Coimbatore Cultural Academy

Dear Kudpung,

How do you do. I am the author of Coimbatore Cultural Academy which was recently

It is a very small article about a small school.

Can you please help me come up with the article.

Thanks, Rama.

CoimbatoreCA (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoimbatoreCA (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung,

I am planning to post the following for Coimbatore Cultural Academy. Please let me know If this is OK.

Hello, I am trying to re-create Coimbatore Cultural Academy with the following content. Can you please help.

The Coimbatore Cultural Academy (CCA) was founded in the year 2002. It was founded with a vision to create excellence in extracurricular activities. Initially started with a few courses, today CCA conducts 20 courses under 1 roof. Abacus, Keyboard, Guitar, Western Dance, Classical Dance, Painting, Vocal, Vedic Maths, Karate etc are taught. Future Kids, Montessori chain of Pre Schools & Fun Schools was founded in the year 2001. It offers Montessori education to children of age group 1 3/4 to 4 years. Thanks. CoimbatoreCA (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoimbatoreCA ([talk]] • contribs) 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Rama, but I don't think we will be able to include this in Wikipedia because it is a fairly new school, a small school, and a school only for children aged 1 3/4 to 4 years, therefore it does not meet our notability standards. It's been deleted twice already and you can read why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coimbatore cultural academy. We only generally have articles for high schools that teach students to 18. You can read all about making articles for schools at WP:WPSCH/AG, but I recommend that you first check out some basic editing instructions by following the links on your talk page.Regards, Kudpung (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cavanaugh (actor)

You suggested on my talk page that User:Mightbeginnings might be a sock puppet of a banned user, having recreated the deleted article Michael Cavanaugh (actor). Sorry it has taken a while to reply, but I have had less time for Wikipedia recently than usual.

The short answer is that your guess is as good as mine. I think the sockpuppet suggestion looks quite possible, but the article is not similar enough to make it a duck case, and without checkuser information I don't see any way of knowing. It might be worth starting a sockpuppet investigation, and requesting a checkuser. If you do so then you might like to also include the IP 217.42.109.109 , which has extensively edited the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I wrote that I have realised that all of the user's edits are hoaxes, so I have blocked the account. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA question

Hi Kudpung. I was reading your comment in Gimme danger's RfA and was curious what you meant about too many automated edits. A couple of people have mentioned that, and it surprised me a bit. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't comment on how I voted, or on my comments, but you are welcome to check this out. --Kudpung (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

PS and this: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ` there are several live threads, I comment on most of them.--Kudpung (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply and the link. I see from that you have a <20% threshold for automated edits, may I ask why? If you don't wish to discuss it, I will respect that. Regarding the RfA talk page, I have that (and Mkativerata's new sandbox) watchlisted and read every comment, and the current discussions are quite interesting. Most of the time I'm able to restrain myself from joining in, but I do chime in occasionally. 28bytes (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read the links, especially the one to my sub page, and saw my answer to WereSpielChequers' four points at talk RfA, I think my position on auto edits is generally clear :) --Kudpung (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I guess this may be one of those areas where we'll have to agree to disagree. :) Regardless, your RfA criteria page is very well-thought out and detailed; I enjoyed reading it. 28bytes (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what we're disagreeing on - apart from stating that you were 'curious what you meant about too many automated edits', you haven't mentioned anything else. I don't discuss how or why I voted on any particular RfA, but I'm perfectly open to any discussion that will hopefully lead to an improvement in the current RfA system, and encourage more good editors to come forward and run for office. --Kudpung (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I guess my question is, why is a low automated count percentage desirable? If a candidate has (for example) 12,000 non-automated edits, why does it matter if that's 20%, 50% or 100% of their total edits? 28bytes (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't does it? If you see my answers to WereSpielChequers' four points. The criteria on my user page are flexible, some quqlities can compensate for others, but any number of mass minor edits with Huggle and/or Twinkle do not demonstrate the capacity for good judgement that is required for many of the admin tasks, nor do they compensate for a good knowledge of content or new policy building. Kudpung (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree 100% that mass Huggling/Twinkling (is that a word?) don't compensate for good policy knowledge or a record of content contributions, but it just seems to be that if the candidate has demonstrated those things with their non-automated edits, the fact that they may also have a huge number of automated edits shouldn't be seen as a negative. And if they haven't demonstrated good policy knowledge or content contributions, having 0% automated edits shouldn't be seen as a positive. I'm just struggling to think of a case in which the percentage itself would be relevant, and I can't come up with any... could you give me a (hypothetical) example? 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought you said you'd read my sub page ;) My threshold of 6,000 edits of which 1,200 can be auto is not, IMHO, setting the bar too high. In fact my main bone of contention, which I share with many others, is the number of so called 'optional' additional questions that are designed to faze the more experienced candidates who generally have much more experience that the people who pose them. Grossly unfair in my opinion. Kudpung (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been following the discussions on the optional questions; I actually enjoyed answering the optional questions in my (brief) RfA, as I thought they were quite thought-provoking and gave me a chance to demonstrate how I would handle various situations... but I recognize I may be in the minority there. And I can certainly think of a few questions I've seen that are really unfair to ask a candidate, since which ever way the candidate answers will be cause for some people to oppose. Ideally, a candidate could say as much: "I don't think this is a fair question, and I'm going to decline to answer it," but of course that would probably get some opposes too, so I don't know what the solution is there. 28bytes (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Catch 22. --Kudpung (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. 28bytes (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Confirmation

I've done extensive research on this page and it all seems to check out. I don't understand why you would suggest that it should be removed. His music videos are affiliated with MTV, he has a reality show that has been picked up by the CW network, and he has a music and film deal with Universal. He's the youngest owner ever of a professional basketball team which happens to also be global (ABA) He's also one of Atlanta's top producing real estate agents. He is a socialite and exclusive party promoter in the greater Atlanta area as well. He seems to be extremely notable and worthy of a wikipedia entry as far as I'm concerned. His sites www.AdrianProvost.com and www.PlanetProvost.com are very notable, as well as his charity Life Juice. He's had numerous television appearances and is well known throughout society. I've reviewed plenty of articles on wikipedia and I can not seem to find justification for the deletion of this page, but the inclusion of some of those other articles. It doesn't seem to make sense to me, please help me understand this. I've spent a considerable amount of time researching the subject and even more time in contributing to the article. I would appreciate an explanation in further detail and would like to know the necessary steps to get this included so I don't feel as if I have wasted so much of my time. Thanks - With Kind Regards I Remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.45.168 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalker comments: I've asked the IP to use the AfD discussion page instead of making their case on user talk pages. --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bonadea. Kudpung (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Medium

Medium (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi, Kudpung, please take a look at the latest changes to the article infobox trying to say the show is over before it's over. There was an internal comment, but editors remove the comment and put in 2011 anyway. I don't want to war about this. The show will be over shortly. Should I even care about this? It's a typical wikipedia phenomenon of trying to insert information about the future. In this instance, it's not a WP:CRYSTAL issue because the show will be over on January 21, 2011, but I just get annoyed at historical data being added to articles before it happens. I also don't understand why I'm almost always in a minority on these issues, but maybe I'm just out of step. :-) In any event, I don't have the energy to raise the issue on the Talk page.

Let me know what you think. It won't bother me a bit if you disagree with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Will it be over? Wikipedia is not a medium. AFAICS the <ref name="Medium Canceled 3">{{cite web |last= Gorman |first= Bill |title= 'Medium' Jan. 21 Series Finale Info (Spoilers) |url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/12/21/medium-jan-21-series-finale-info-spoilers/76330#comment-720625 |date=December 21, 2010 |accessdate=December 23, 2010}}</ref> does not link to a reliable source, and any news of it ending appears to be still based on conjecture from the actors - although I have not personally made any research for other sources. It might indeed be scheduled to end then, but I don't see the current Wikipedia article fulfilling its role of verifiability. Historical 'facts' should never be reported in an encyclopedia before they happen - to do so would defeat the philosophy of encyclopedia building. However, as there is now only a week to go, I suggest not making too much fuss about it. When the current series ends however, if there is not a rapid official announcement from the TV network, or the series producers, or national press, then of course the article must be corrected to conform with reality. --Kudpung (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The source you list is a press release from CBS. After seeing it, I actually found the press release on CBS's website. I changed the source to point to the CBS site, but was told that many people in countries other than the US cannot access the CBS website. See here for the reversion of my change. I then started a discussion at the Pump here because I wanted to try to verify what I was being told. The discussion wasn't wholly satisfying, but because I had confirmed that the derivative site mirrored precisely the release on the CBS site, I accepted it and let go. Plus, at least more than one person was telling me they couldn't access the CBS site.

So, with all that detail (probably more than you wanted to know) and assuming that CBS has officially confirmed the cancellation, what do you think about my issue? (BTW, you don't have to go to the trouble to put a TB tag on my Talk page - I'm watching yours.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's like I said, historical 'facts' should never be reported in an encyclopedia before they happen - to do so would defeat the philosophy of encyclopedia building. However, as there is now only a week to go, I suggest not making too much fuss about it. I don't think you are out of step at all, but we all get moments when we feel we are being brow beaten by other editors. Kudpung (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much where I come out after I step back from it. Thanks for listening and for the advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

JISBELL24 has now been blocked. Kudpung (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Added some 'notability' links and references to the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine

Hi Kudpung, A few weeks ago you flagged up that the page for the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine needed some more 'notability' links and references to enhance the page. I have added some of these and cleaned up the text a bit. I hope this is now better - can you review please?! Many thanks, Benjicott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjicott (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK now. Good references, thanks for taking care of it. I have removed the tags. --Kudpung (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Regards, Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjicott (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Category question

Sorry if this is a dumb question, I've never edited categories before. In this change, I removed some seemingly strange wikilinks on the Categories, eg. [[Category:Mammals of Southeast Asia|Water Shrew, Malayan]] to just [[Category:Mammals of Southeast Aisa]]. Was there a reason those were there, or was it right to take them off? Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Cats should not be piped to display differently.--Kudpung (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way I can automate moves? I want to move everything currently in [[Category:Endemic species of Malaysia]] to [[Category:Endemic fauna of Malaysia]] Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It can probably be done with AWB (I think), but you would need to get permission to use it. If AWB can't do it, you'd need to get a one-time bot to do it for you. However, unless you made the original category yourself, a unilateral change of this kind could be controversial and should not be done without consensus. You would need to make your suggestions on the talk pages of the project(s) that provide the brolly for these topics. I would suggest reading up on WP:CAT before you do anything drastic. Kudpung (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC) .

The categories were piped to list the articles in a different order on the category page - all bats were together, all gibbons were together, although there appears to be nothing about this use of sort keys in the Manual of Style - maybe it was something from one of the Wikiprojects (piping doesn't affect the appearance of categories in articles). Peter E. James (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also there's something wrong with the nav template on that page - its collapse (show/hide) function is not working.Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, There is something about somewhere about using piped names for cats, but it's not in the MOS. They may makethe cat page look more organised, but it will only work if everyone does it for those cats. The be"st way to keep a cat page organised is probably with the DEFAULTSORT template. Kudpung (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards

Thank you for that list. I linked yours to mine. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Toots5446

Hi Kudpung! Thanks you for your reviews on Elie_Bursztein and your introductory message on my talk page. I am not entierly new to WP though, I was a regular on the french one back in the good old days. My profile on WP:FR is there: [2] Toots5446 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Toots. We're a lot stricter here on references than the fr.Wiki, especially with WP:BLP :) Kudpung (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I see.. I am not entierly sure that I understand what is meant by "reliable third-party publications". To me, papers published in peer-reviwed did fit this picture but apparently I am wrong. Thus, I an not sure either about what is intended for secondary sources. Are research articles related to his work relevant? Additionaly, I found a couple of press cover of his work on google such as [3] (BBC) [4] (ZDNET) and [5] (MIT technology review). Does that qualify better? Thanks for your help. Toots5446 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The BBC one seems OK, but not the others. sources must contain more than just a mention of the subject's name. They don't necessarily need to be entirely about the person, but they must contain enough information that is useful to the biography and clearly demonstrates why the person is notable. ZNET and MIT don't quqlify for this article. The links you need to our en.Wiki policies are WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:V. If there is anyting else you need to know, don't hesitate to ask me. --Kudpung (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I think I'm starting to get it. I am currently at work but I will go over the page later and enhance it. Toots5446 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Frank Stewart (disambiguation)

Dear Kudpung:
Thanks for your diligent assistance!
MusiCitizen (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary celebrations; Foundation reports; local language problems; brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage continues; Thai government translates Wikipedia; brief news

• Sister projects: Upcoming steward elections, and a retrospective on stewards' work in 2010

• WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket

• Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons

• Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case

• Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Dspradau's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooper Middle School (California)

Hey, it was nice of you to put a note on my page, but no need to concern yourself. I certainly don't take personally what anyone says in a deletion discussion! As for the significance (or not) of that school's news coverage, you may very well be right that it's not sufficient. I was just objecting to your apparent dismissal of respected regional newspapers as a Reliable Source. If you doubt that something called the Fresno Bee could possibly be a regional newspaper, let me explain that it serves an area 220 miles in length and 40-60 miles in width with a population of more than 3 million people. BTW while I do enjoy article rescue, it doesn't affect my opinions at AfD. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, but I vote "delete" on the vast majority of AfDs. (Most of them are SOOOO deserving of deletion!) See you around Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that why articles land up at AfD. It's just a shame that those of us who send them there or !vote 'delete' get branded as deletionists. With the Fresno Bee you strike a chord, and I stand corrected. One dimension that many Wikipedians find hard to grasp is that of regionality. I've travelled the world and lived and worked for very long periods in many countries, but never the USA, and even I tend to forget sometimes that the area you describe is larger/more populous than even some European countries. Therefore even the expression 'national coverage' has to be taken in perspective. Take care, and thanks for looking in. --Kudpung (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Evesham

You asked me to look at Evesham. I spent some time on this reluctantly, found that had been unnecessary for Evesham article per se, but did find very problematic issue described in detail at WP:Verifiability#Wikipedia Epidemic error I am beginning to get a bit concerned. Wiki-legalists block wording that seems to be common sense and innocuous, whilst allowing major error. And no-one seems concerned. If you have any comments, could you put them on the Epidemic Error posting. I am forbidden to go from using counts of citations in Web of Science, because this is synthesis, but an Editor can synthesize incorrectly from enumeration in one title to enumeration in another without understanding underlying principles. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning students on a Wikipedia article

G'day Kudpung. Started a discussion at Talk:Concordia_College,_Adelaide#Student_Leadership regarding mention of student names in that article. I'm sure there's a rule or policy in regards to mentioning potentially underage students on a wikipedia article, beyond WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. Being that you have some experience in this area, I'm hoping that you know where to find it? -danjel (talk to me) 10:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Danj. You can add WP:BIO, WP:BLP to that list on the talk page. Basically, names of people should not be mentioned in any Wikipedia article if they themselves are not notable, or don't have their own Wkipedia page, or are not sourced according to WP:RS and WP:V. A good test for this is the 'Notable residents' sections of pages about places. School articles are about the school and not about its individual staff or students. Wikipedia policies are hierarchical, a local consensus cannot override a higher one. Guidelines on the other hand are a grey area, but if they have been largely followed by the community it would be unwise to do otherwise. --Kudpung (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I figured that (in regards to WP:NLIST), but I'll add them. I think that User:Pdfpdf asserts ownership of the article. *shrug* Cheers. -danjel (talk to me) 11:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't shrug, because WP:OWN: All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article, is a fundamental principle and one of the highest policies of building this encyclopedia. If I come across anyone flaunting that rule, I would firmly but politely come down on them like a ton of bricks, and not be afraid to do so, whoever they are, but I would have to have very good evidence as to the the claims of ownership. --Kudpung (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree.. As to evidence:

Dear Danjel, please use the word "we" with CONSIDERABLY more thought. As it happens, the "we" who maintain this page DO mention students on wikipedia.

from edit summary [[6]] (emph. added)

In case you hadn't noticed, (obviously you hadn't looked or thought), this page HAS the consensus of the people who are maintaining it. So please bugger-off and, if you must, go waste other people's time. We who maintain this page are perfectly happy with it like it is.

from his response to my section at Talk:Concordia_College,_Adelaide#Student_Leadership (emph. added)

I've brought it up with this user before (on another article which he jealously guarded against any attempts at consistency). I think the issue's under control, though. Cheers. -danjel (talk to me) 12:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Most of the authors of our school pages are what we call WP:SPA, and they all have a theoretical COI - they are mostly students or staff and if they didn't write these articles, we wouldn't have many pages about schools at all. With your knowledge of policies and editing techniques, I see no problem in you writing as many school articles as you like, even if you were, for example, the regional schools superintendent. I've also written a bunch of articles on schools I'm connected with. --Kudpung (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I work as a consultant for the public schools in my state, so I have strong connections with a number of schools. I try to stay away from schools where I spend a significant amount of time. I'm just very mindful of coming across as promoting a school. I've seen articles written by SPA with conflicts of interest, and they're mostly rubbish requiring a lot of cleaning up. I'm not interested in going down that path, consciously or subconsciously.

I'm working on User:Danjel/Rose Bay Secondary College at the moment, with the view that my close link with them is likely to cease in May this year. After that, I'll probably ask some other editors to pass an eye over it and move it out of my userspace. I also want to DYK the bit about the magnet program, but the reliable sources are a bit thin on the ground (I have one self published report from the program coordinators and a brief TV mention that I'm not going to even bother with) at the moment until we (and a couple of other schools in the area) publish our annual school reports for 2010.

I'm also working on write ups for the Networks of schools in the Sydney Region (User:Danjel/Botany_Bay_Network and User:Danjel/Georges_River_Network are done, User:Danjel/Inner_City_Network is what I'm currently working on). Once I have the region done, then I'll ask WP:EIA for comments and then put it up too. I think it'd be better to redirect to these than to localities (I think I've told you about Greenwich Public School before).

Thanks for the encouragement. -danjel (talk to me) 02:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you Mind?

Hi, we'll, I've seen you around, and interacted with you, so if you wouldn't mind, could you "review my editing"? I had an ER, but I would value your opinion about my editing etc here on the ol 'pedia. I don't plan on running for adminship for some time, and I am currently being coached. What can I improve on, how have I done so far? Thanks Kudpung. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been taking a close interest in your editing for a long time. I think you are probably a very young Wikipdian but I have always been impressed with the maturity with which you conduct your interaction with fellow users. Your editing is on the right track - there's nothing particular that needs pointing out. You learn about your errors from the messages people leave on your talk page like they do to all of us of all ages and experience, and it's an on-going process. However, avoid digging yourself too deep in controversial areas such as ANI and other top level dispute resolution boards if you are not directly involved - follow them by all means and use them as a homework assignment. Step up your participation on AfD debates (I'll let you know if you are off track), and put in as much good NPP as you can after reading everything here and here. I think you've made you point often enough on the RfA talk page, and maybe it's time to consider throttling back a little bit there. Do however, continue to !vote intelligently and civilly on RfA and show some of the older and more experienced !voters the right way to behave! But avoid piling on with 'optional' questions if you can - that's one area that many of us would like to see heavily restricted. In my opinion, those questions aren't really necessary because any !voter who has done his/her homework properly should already know all s/she needs to know about the candidate, and will be able to make a judgment call independent of extra questions, and the !voting pattern of the other participants. FWIW, it takes me around an hour or even longer to research and make up my mind before I !vote. Remember also that on Wikipedia, people are very quick to jump to wrong conclusions, one is that they tend to identify what they consider to be a lust for power. The irony is, that such criticism often comes from the power hungry people themselves. All the best, and never hesitate to come to this page if you need any advice on anything, and there's also a lot of useful stuff on my user pages. --Kudpung (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to your second comment here, would you mind filling me in, thanks. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the best way to be involved with a discussion like that is to follow all of it, all of the time. Where these 'perennial' discussions never lead to progress is because so many people chip in without knowing what has been previously discussed - a typical example is User:Protonk who leaps in with a TLDR speech, but does not offer one single solution then complains at me because I have the decency - and the civility - not to name names, and not to take his bait. I always have a distrust for admins who can't keep a civil tongue in their heads. The real reason, and it's been confirmed dozens of times, why people won't run for office (whatever year they started editing the Wikipedia), is because they are just not prepared to go through the ordeal that RfA has become. Period. With the exception of two or three who failed on technicalities in 2010/2011, all the others that failed shouldn't even have wasted our time with their applications anyway. I mean, just look through them. Many people want to be admins for all the wrong reasons - some even join Wikipedia with the intention of wanting to be an admin as soon as possible. Take a deep breath, look back, and try to figure out why, for example I have never run for adminship in spite of my maturity (61, retired professor), 26,000 edits since 2006, squeaky clean record (no warnings, blocks, or deleted files or pages), civility, clue, and helpfulness (WP:EAR - 350 user questions answered), balanced involvement in Wikpedia policy development (NPP, BLP, 100 page creations and some GA, and micromanaging a major project). Then you have the answer. Keep the questions coming :) Kudpung (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood -- you know, I think you'd be one fine admin, we need more of you around here. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Tofu. Another tip: before answering a comment from anyone you don't know, or tagging a page, always check out their user page, edit count, and editor/sysop status. It will slow down your productivity a bit, but it's something I always do. It's like code switching, we adjust what we say and how we say it to the person whom we are addressing, bearing in mind of course that on Wikipedia, 1,000s of people are looking on - we're all in one mega fish bowl here. Words are a wonderful tool when used wisely. You have the gift, use it carefully - Wikipedia is not Hogwarts ;) Kudpung (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I use a tool called popups. You can enable it in your preferences, whenever you hover over a Wikilink it gives a preview -- when you hover over a signaure -- it gives you there edit count, registration date, and permissions. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I use it all the time, especially when going daily through the 5,000 or so pages on my watchlist - it's good for checking out the new diffs without having to load the pages. But for editor background, I prefer to see the mess their user page is in, it tells a lot about their personality, and to access their block logs and NPP patrols. I use X tools for a complete breakdown of contributions, creations, !votes on RfA, AfD, etc.Kudpung (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to correspond with my activity. I have followed the instructions as requested. --Kudpung (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good, I am excited, we always need more active community members to help! Sadads (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Example

Is this and example of an unneeded question at an RFA, just to take up space? I think so. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ohh look, another even more useless question by the same user in March. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to give you that orange bar again, but looking through all that users contributions, most of thier additions are bogus questions on RFA's...Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you've singled those questions out as being possibly silly, then you probably have good reason to consider them so. Others may disagree on grounds that it is fair to introduce comic relief into RfA. If it were my RfA, I would ignore those questions without even commenting on them - even if it would ultimately lead to my defeat due to the inevitable pile-on 'opposes' my refusal to answer might generate. If I were a 'crat, I would probably consider striking them through, and risk the consequences of being accused of acting out of process. If they are frequent, and the editor in question does little else around the Wikipedia, I might open an RfC on his/her behaviour (it might after all set a precedent for getting some aspects of RfA cleaned up). However, those are only my opinions, but you are probably already guessing that I have a low tolerance for civility and inappropriate contributions to discussions and debates, whether they are baseless edits bordering on disruption, or cleverly cloaked as intelligent remarks. You can easily find out who poses questions that could possibly be considered inappropriate by checking through the RfA from 2010 like I did; when you see suspect questions, check out the editor's history, and formulate an opinion as to whether you consider his/her participation to be a net positive to the RfA process, or even to Wikipedia in general. It will also help you establish your own thresholds for what you expect from others for pertinence, responsibility, and civility, and how you react to them. Kudpung (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I did some further research on the user, and found that is all their contributions are. Going to RFA's and posting stupid questions, or opposing people based on their religion, or with no rationale at all. Their was an RFC on this user over a year ago, and this user has done little to no content work, just RFA's. I posted on their talk page, I don't think I will get a response. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 16:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm well acquainted with the history. There have been some warnings, but it's not not worth kicking up a fuss about. The danger is however, that if you uspset them, when it's your turn for RfA there's a risk they'll oppose you, and so long as RfA is a pure !vote counting exercise cloaked in a lot of nastiness, there's not much a closing 'crat is going to do about it. You've probably noticed by now that I am one of the main proponents for change at RfA. Kudpung (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He can oppose a future RFA of mine all he wants. But I'm not sure how much credit he will get when he puts Oppose This person bothers me because of how I act on RFA's. You should not be an admin. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It did it again, boy, I really want to make that RFC...Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Before you do, some of the things you can take into consideration are the outcomes of any previous RfC, because you will be taken to task on them; evaluate the consensus among the posters on the user's talk page, and evaluate carefully how you think the user's RfA !votes may have influenced the pattern of !voting by other editors. You might come to the conclusion as I mentioned above, that it's not worth getting excited about. On the other hand, you will have researched the problem more thoroughly than I have and you may well conclude otherwise.Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep -- but the thing is, if all you do is vote in RFA's and seem to serve no "other" purpose, then, well, you know. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, decisions at noticeboards are extraordinarily forgiving. See for example how sockpuppets are allowed to accept the 'special offer' (a kind of plea bargain) with impunity. One of the very few nasty encounters I ever had with an editor was with a former sockmaster who had created literally 1,000s of one-line, inadequately referenced BLP stubs. For some reason, being allowed to remain active caused them to adopt a pompous 'holier than thou' attitude and still claim that they have created 'thousand of articles'. Before you wonder if I've gone completely off topic (or off my mind), it may be worth considering that such posting on RfA may be by a sock of another user who otherwise makes a lot of valuable edits to the 'pedia. There was indeed a recent RfA where a confirmed sockpuppet made an extremely poignant and long 'oppose' statement that actually contributed to a worthy candidate (IMHO, of course) failing to be promoted. Sockpuppetry is a serious Wiki crime for the very fact that socks use their accounts to influence opionion and the !voting on debates and discussions. I've discovered several. Socks often go unnoticed for a very long time - usually until they make a mistake and a sharp-witted user notices. Once the suspicion is raised, it's relatively easy to prove. WP:CU have tools that for some reason are regarded as a closely guarded secret here, but that every web developer uses perfectly legally in standard web design. They can identify the very machine, the operating system and version, the browser and version, and the log-in time. Discovering socks and making them accountable is a fascinating area of Wikipedia, especially when reading the feeble denials they make when found out. See this recent example where we possibly have to undo 100s of creations. Theoretically, though, all creations by sockpuppets can be summarily deleted, whether good or not. It depends on the amount of time and waste of HR it would take to unravel the mess and salvage anything useful. Sometimes SPI take place in special places and we might not necessarily hear about it. I'm not in favour of making witch hunts our primary objectives, but if we want to be admins, apart from being a role model and leading by example by being sharp-witted, unruffled, and super civil, we also need to exceptionally vigilant. That's also one of the reasons why I make such a fuss about doing WP:NPP properly, and instigating new features to make it run more smoothly. It's also one of the places where one can catch some smelly socks in the closet. Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, and I agree. I'm sure something will come up, but it's been two years of this nonsense. I'm not going to comment about if this user is/is not a sockpuppet. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to - I only mentioned it as an example so that you can see how odd behaviour can often be a sign of something more sinister, and can sometimes be worth investigating. Kudpung (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: RfA

My interpretation of your prior post was that you believed that "silly and/or trick questions" were having a direct influence on the success rate of RfAs. My belief is that while there may be people that vote on this basis, those numbers are still outweighed by the number of people who support with no explanation whatsoever, on what appears to be a similarly flimsy basis. I retain that view, but certainly apologise if you feel that I've misrepresented your point. Regards, —WFC— 14:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi WSC. I agree with your comment on the unqualified support !votes. However, my areas of concern are focused on the silly and/or trick questions and civility issues, and how they are deterring editors of the right calibre from accepting our suggestions to to run for office. By pure coincidence, the message above might be of interest. --Kudpung (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katimavik Elementary School (2nd nomination)

I didn't know there'd been a previous AFD until after I hit the button (blasted Twinkle). In any event, I figure an AFD will ensure that any future attempt to recreate will be speedily redirected per G4. Blueboy96 22:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. Unless you often get involved with school articles there is probably no reason why you should be aware that there are a few different guidelines affecting schools. The most important thing is that you have identified and drawn attention to an article that needs some special treatment. --Kudpung (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)