User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jul 2011

Just checking, cause I'm tired

In the Stats section, bullet points two and three are the same, right?--SPhilbrickT 02:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realised that but I got called away and didn't change it. No big issue - most people don't follow the links anyway. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I was mostly demonstrating that I WAS following the links :)--SPhilbrickT 02:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I know, and I know you do. I always have admired your pragatism ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Template

Hi, Kudpung. (Whoa, seriously cool template above the edit window. Never seen that before. I want one!) I've seen you around the wiki, and you seem pretty sensible to me. Regarding your comment here, I don't want to clutter the discussion up by replying to everyone favoring deletion—I hate it when that happens—so I hope it's okay if I make a couple of comments here.

Template:AnonymousWelcome and Template:Welcome-anon: while I think calling them "near duplicates" is an exaggeration, their basic function is similar, so that seems like a reasonable point of view. Your broader point troubles me, though. As someone who has scrolled through that long and growing list of welcome templates to identify several that I felt comfortable using, I'd say that while there is some redundancy, there is also an abundance of meaningful, if often subtle, distinctions. Unless we're going to start a wholesale culling of welcome templates (omg—forget I said that), I'm not sure why Template:AnonymousWelcome, which is almost six years old and has done no evident harm, is being singled out for extermination. However, its wording could be much improved, and it doesn't much matter to me whether it's modified or deleted and another one started from scratch. Here's my question: if I were to create a new one, based loosely on Template:AnonymousWelcome but much improved, would you be willing to look it over and offer suggestions? If so, I'll shoot you a link when I upload my draft to userspace. If not, that's fine. Rivertorch (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy too. Actually, such templates don't take up much space, the only thing that confuses me is when I get confronted by a huge dropdown menu in `Twinkle. if you want the code for my talk page template all you need to do is go into 'Edit' at the very top of this page, then click on 'Edit notice' and then on 'Edit' again. Grab the code, take it to your sandbox and adapt it, then paste it to your own talk page edit notice. I've got a similar one on my user page.The rest of my user page is made up from php calls to other pages which I have stored somewhere else - it helps prevent vandalism. If you know some basic HTML you can change the fonts and colours etc. You can also change the clock to your local time. If you get stuck, I'll do it for you. BTW: By pure coincidence, I have a special task for you too on something completely different that I've been meaning to ask you about, and completely forgot. See the thread above at 'Stats' and if you can figure out what it's about, I'll give you the links to rest of the story :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Special task? Nothing exactly jumps out at me, but I'm a bit rushed this afternoon. I can summon my powers of intuition and give it another go later on . . . or you can just tell me ;) Re your template: thanks. It's mostly the personalized aspect and the fact of its popping up right in one's face that interested me. It seems potentially much more noticeable than a notice stuck on the top of the talk page. For instance, I keep getting Talkback templates on my talk page (ahem) even though I've stated that they're usually unnecessary. This might reduce that, and I'll incorporate it in the overhaul of my space that I keep not getting around to. (I do know HTML, btw; I was hand-coding web sites back in the Jurassic period. It's Wiki Markup that baffles me to the point that I've never learned it in depth.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All right, I get what the general topic is. How can I help? (My time may be very limited over the next several days, but I'll do what I can.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply endorse or oppose the suggested page move and discussion format by replying in the thread above. This is not canvassing, because you were already in favour of the proposal. We just need to know where and how to start the discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess on 'Stats' is that it's the proposal to make creating articles for confirmed users. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 07:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I gathered that much. Honestly, I've put the topic out of my mind for several weeks and haven't been following anything that followed the RfC's closure. At the risk of seeming extraordinarily dense, could I ask for a summary of what precisely is at issue now? I think I glean that there's a proposal draft and that there's some question over where it should be moved, but I'm not clear on what I'd be endorsing or opposing. Rivertorch (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposal was passed by an overwhelming consensus, and was that all new pages may only be created by autoconfirmed users. A trial was strongly recommended by the voices on the RfC and JW said he and the WMF wanted statistical support for the trial. This next step is simply to determine the duration of the required trial. Nothing more, nothing less. However, the pre-draft for the discussion on the duration was unilaterally move-deleted from my user space by a user to their own user space, who has since blocked himself for a month. Rather than do what I personally think to be right, I have suggested that we reach a small consensus as to where to move it to. The suggestion which generally has support, is to move it to a sub page of the original RfC, which is normally the usual venue for the continuation on the details of a proposal that has been passed. It's a minor point, but I'm just being cautious in face of the earlier move issue. It took a while, but we now have all the stats that were asked for and the move can go ahead. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've endorsed moving it to a subpage of the original RfC. Rivertorch (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Seen already. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Per top of thread, please see template draft here when you get a moment. (Absolutely no rush. I'll be offline for hours.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Sylvia Hodgson

Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Sylvia Hodgson to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I searched for references and she clearly fails WP:NACTOR, but I don't mind either way. BTW, I corrected your grammar on the PROD rationale ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh, thank you, that was embarassing.

I agree that she fails WP:NACTOR and that her bio should be deleted, but I'm not sure a speedy was appropriate, in this case: I considered her appearance in Dustbin Baby to be an indication of significance. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

Maybe http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_Summer_of_Research_2011 ?

Another possibility is User:Dragons flight; he did some great analytical work in September 2007. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Deleting Inno Garage

Dear Sir,

I am from Inno Garage. We are trying to add the page of our company to Wiki. Please do not delete the page. Pleas guide me if any thing is needed. Please check for our presence on the web. You will also find that we are among the first companies to come up with a solution to Google+.

Please look into the issue.

Thank you sir, Nikhilmigc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilmigc (talk • contribs) 07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry your article had to be deleted, but it does not conform to our requirements. You must first establish notability that demonstrates the importance of your company. The rules for this are at WP:ORG for organisations. You must then support these claims through reliable sources that are independent of your company, its parent, its subsidiaries or partners. The kind of sources we accept are listed at WP:RS. Also, as this is an encyclopedia and not a company listing directory, you should not be writing an article about yourself, your company, or anything your are closely connected with, or clients for your SEO services. If your subject is notable, someone else will write about it, and they will cite sources from articles in established newspapers or magazines, or a TV documentary about your company. Please read the messages on your talk page, follow all the blue links here, and there, and please ask me if you have further questions about why we cannot accept your article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Deleting Inno Garage

Sir,

Can you please help me with the editing- please shoot a mail to <email address redacted> or please respond to the message. Thanks for your help.

Regards, Nikhilmigc

Deleting the page Inno Garage

We were trying to create a wikipedia page titled inno garage and you deleted it twice even before the article was written completely. Please be patient and let us finish our article before you review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushik101 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have responded above already, and again on your talk page, explaining all the reasons why you are not allowed to advertise here. Please now follow the links. All the BLUE words here and on your talk page are links to our policies and instructions - you must do this first before we can consider accepting your article. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way - we do not 'shoot' emails.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A curious thing

Hi - I note you do NPP. - I wondered if the following anomoly would interest you Click Here to see a message regarding a series of articles that might be something like is being discussed on my own talkpage here. It might either be a significant copyvio or someone publishing a family history. I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Mark^Dask 11:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi markdask. Curious. There may well be copyvios because some random comparison checks come up positive with http://www.nexthomegeneration.com/Jaff%20tribe, for example. There's almost certainly a COI - from the user names and the page names. I think also that that it's sockpuppetry. If socks are proved through an SPI with CU, the solution is easy, they both get blocked and the articles can be deleted. However, Vejvančický is an admin too, and may be a bit more specialised in this than me. Most of my new page patrolling is for gathering stats. Do keep me up to date though because it's an interesting case. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do - thanks. Mark^Dask 12:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. There's one serious problem with similar articles. They usually contain reliably looking list of references and NPP patrollers sometimes don't bother to check whether the information is correct and verifiable. The articles in question survived here a month almost without noticing. Before I mark an article as patrolled, I almost always check at least a part of the content outside of Wikipedia. Patrolling the articles from the NP backlog is an interesting area of work ... I'd prefer to wait some time and give the editor a chance to address the problems. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Except for the few of us who work in the murky depths of the backlog, our research has shown that the average NPPers don't bother to check anything much. We're working on it at MediaWiki. I started the main research back in October last year. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to me that templating is the favorite activity of some NPPers. I for example don't understand the existence of the {{uncat}} template. Adding it to an article is a useless and sloppy edit. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There's one who just goes through all the new pages with Huggle and put orphan tags on them. There's a;so another who just systematically puts Wikify tags on even the shortest one-line stubs. Oh well... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Uff. It must be a really entertaining activity. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A propos the above stuff about templating, a WP:TPS hopes that this might raise a laugh if you haven't seen it before. --GuillaumeTell 23:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I often smile at Jorge's stuff, but I didn't know about this one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung - update. Vejvančický has now proposed the whole set of articles for deletion here. I thought you might like to comment there. Mark^Dask 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Deleting Inno Garage

Sir,

I do not intend to advertise any company. The company specializes in the areas of digital marketing and advertising. We also create tools of tracking.

But, since you asked for we shall ask one of the non related people to write about the company. This shall take care of the A7 and A20 that you specified.

Regards, Nikhilmigc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilmigc (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We do not have an A20. Please ensure that the references firmly establish the company's notability in the market, and are reported in reliable, established newspapers, magazines, or on TV. Your own web site, any blogs, trade directory sites, and press releases will not be accepted. Whoever writes the article must read all the instructions first, or it will be deleted again. Wikipedia is a very large organisation with over 1,700 administrators - we also have tools for tracking that are as good as any that are used by SEO companies. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

(Barnstar moved to User:Kudpung/Awards)

Hey! Nice to hear from you. Thanks for the barnstar. I hope you're doing OK. Take care! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing okay....I still check in -- life has brought new challenges and I'm working on some other projects ATM. I'll be back... Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• Ancapp - User is blocked.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 22:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

For the technically challenged!!

Hello Kudpung, Thank you so kindly for your very quick response to my query regarding The Amazing People Club. I have gone through your references/links provided and spent a lot of time yesterday also researching whether we reach the 'notability' standards and external references also. To the best of my ability, I am able to ascertain that we 'qualify' and would benefit the Wikipedia community/knowledge base.

The problem, however, remains, in that the coding and technical side of creating an article on Wikipedia is rather beyond me. Also, I have noted that this would not be suitable in terms of myself being associated with the Company.

If I really feel strongly that it should be included and if is a proposal that is welcomed by Wikipedia, how do I go about getting assistance to have an experienced Wikipedia editor/contributor to 'technically' create it. I am actually rather surprised that it does not exist already! Well, you can hear I feel quite passionate about it...

thanking you in advance for your guidance in this matter.

Kind regards, Marion www.amazingpeopleclub.com Lenmar123 (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Our editing features are not too difficult and are easy to master, the editing window is very similar to those on any Internet forums or blogs, and the editing toolbar is self explanatory. You should always press the 'Show preview' button before saving anything. We do in fact have a wealth of help pages. Although you have not edited yet, I have now placed our standard welcome message on your talk page. it contains many links to help pages, including an Article Creation Wizard which you may find particularly useful. However, if they prefer (probably the best solution to avoid possible early deletion), the author can also start creating the article on a sub page of their user space where it will not be visible on the man encyclopedia pages. When it is finished, I would review it and make any suggestions and clean up any formatting deficiencies , then if it conforms with our policies, I would move it to the main pages for you. It will also have its own talk page where I can offer you help during its development. I hope this helps. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a list of many examples of wiki-markup at User:Σ/Resources. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but probably a tad too confusing and not absolutely essential for a new article creator. Standard markup is displayed here at the bottom of the edit window, with a dropdown for more. Clicking on the items inserts them in the text. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.-- DQ (t) (e) 14:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits in article space

In the rare event that you would care, the next edit you make in article space will be your 10,000th. Conveniently, this is also my 2,600th edit in user talk space. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My 10,000th article space edit was cleaning up, moving, and copyediting Ajay Kumar - and then PRODING it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Revenge votes

Hi, a recent RfA prompts me to ask if you have any statistics on possible revenge votes for want of a neologism; i.e. those that _may_ have opposed an RfA because the candidate did not support the !voter's own earlier one. (obviously it would be difficult to prove an oppose as revenge based, but raw numbers would be interesting). --ClubOranje^T 11:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Golly, that's a tough one. It's impossible to electronically extract and extrapolate such a dataset. The only way would be through painstaking manual wading though all the RfAs, r asking candidates - successful or otherwise - if they felt there had been any revenge. Personally I think it's unlikely among serious candidates and voters, s it would be mostly among the SNOW and NOTNOW of immature candidates and their voters. I have voted support for candidates who opposed my own RfA, but have not yet opposed anyone who opposed me. If I were to, it would be for entirely other reasons (and I think there will be one soon), and I think I've sadly had to oppose some who were kind enough to support my RfA. You could perhaps use the stalk tool to see if there are any RfA matches, but even then the results would have to be manually compared. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, no worries and thanks. I don't believe it is a big issue and agree that most users would give honest appraisal, just occasionally seen a relatively lone dissenter that has previously been opposed by the candidate. --ClubOranje^T 11:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Formatted references

Dear sir,

The references section is formatted as per instructions.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya563 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And a good job to you!

(Barnstar moved to User:Kudpung/Awards)

Thank you, kind sir!  :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

New tool

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/patrolreport.cgi - Check it out and let me know what you think. Anything that should be added to it to make it more useful? —SW— ^confabulate 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a good tool that will back up some of our arguments. I've had a brief look, but I'll need to think how it can best be used. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I envisioned it being used to help users coordinate what part of the queue they're working on. I've often been patrolling from the very back of the queue and get edit conflicts with someone else who is doing the same. It also helps us patrol the patrollers, to see who is patrolling where, how much time they're spending per article, if they're only working on articles that are a few minutes old, etc. —SW— ^confer 15:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• See also http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/patrolgraph.cgi which tracks the newpages queue. It'll gradually expand to show up to the last 30 days, sampling once each hour. —SW— ^babble 21:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Malvern peer review

I zoomed in as soon as I noticed it at PR. As the principal perpetrator of the Elgar article (which you reviewed most thoroughly and helpfully en route to FA) how could I ignore the base of the great man's mature years? I'll do another batch tomorrow. It is no hardship to review such a well-written and thorough article. More anon. Tim riley (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't conscious of excessive length at any point in the article (and that's obviously a good sign) but in sober fact it weighs in at more than 12,500 words. My most recent promotee at FA was just under 9,000 words after I was pressed into spinning off one section into a stand-alone article. That being so, I wholly sympathise with your suggestion of trimming the section on the research establishment, particularly as it has its own article (a fact I hadn't spotted). I think you are very prudent to consider having another spin-off article on the ecclesiastical architecture, too. Tim riley (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hey. Thanks for your help about the rfa voting. Just a little mistake that I did. And I might request of being an administrator possibly this month. And I have a good edit count which is mostly 4,000 edits. I think I'm good to go. --Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 21:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you can get lots of DYKs and good articles or make lots of new templates within the month, given the standards of more recent RfA candidates. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I am ready to make my nomination. I will do it after I finish my dinner or do it tomorrow.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 02:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I find your lack of article work disturbing, and am sure other !voters at RfA will too. But note that this is only advice. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I will improve and do more article writing and might get article status good. Thanks for the advice.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Damirgraffiti, be absolutely sure to read these two pages before you even think of transcluding an RfA, :

• Advice for RfA candidates
• RfA criteria

and follow the links in them, and read any further articles that are listed in them, especially other users' RfA criteria, even if it takes you a week longer. Remember that candidates for RfA come under exceptionally intense scrutiny. Voters at RfA look particularly for signs of a candidate's age and/or maturity and also how thee are reflected on the candidate's user and talk pages. Candidates who pass these days have a mean average of around 11,000 edits, although very rarely some pass with fewer. If they do, it's because they are top specialists in copyright or programming. Statistics show that RfA with a strong nomination from an experienced editor or admin have the best chance of succeeding. At RfA many of the opposition votes can be hurtful, even brutal, - RfA can be a very nasty place. If you want to know more about RfA, don't hesitate to ask. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help about the RFA. I will improve more and I might get GA and/or DYK. I might get one of my articles FA at some point in the future. I will extend my best wishes on the Wikipedia.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 00:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Elgar

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Wotnow's talk page.
Message added Now (or then when you read it) 6 July 2011. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Essay format follow-up

Hi Kudpung, re User talk:Fetchcomms#Essay format, unfortunately I have to tell you that using that design isn't going to happen now :(. The site from where I got the layout actually didn't license the design/theme under a CC license; however, due to earlier ambiguities in their licensing text, I was unaware of that until a recent OTRS ticket came in regarding my infringement of the design. If you would like me to create an original theme for the "advice to younger editors" essay, I'd be happy to do so (although it would likely be in a few weeks because I will be away traveling soon). Best, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. That's a shame about the ©, but never mind. My question was more really about whether it is accepted here to wrap Wikipedia essays in any theme other than the boring standard page format. Yours is the only essay I've ever seen that has it's own skin. I thought about Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors because it's a page where some jollying up may be effective, especially since I have rewritten it in a language for kids. I wasn't actually asking you to do it, but since you mention it, it would be great if you could. I rather like the stuff you're doing at outreach. I'll also be travelling soon, going to the UK for a couple of months. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at theming that later, then. While it's sort of a time-taker, I think that more engaging essay presentations might help get the message across a little better. Now, if only ArbCom cases were more fun to read .... Stay safe when traveling! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy tags

On ROBLOX ( editable ), you placed a speedy tag, even though you're an admin. Out of curiosity, why not skip the tagging and delete the page? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There are very good reasons for this. Most admins do it. It ensures that the final decision to delete has been made by two admins. There is no rule for this, but it is an unwritten etiquette that is commonly observed. We generally only immediately and summarily delete blatant infringements of policy that include clear cases of vandalism, spam, copypyright, and attack pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Petrie Terrace State School

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Talk:Petrie Terrace State School.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If noone else comes forward, I'll get one of my kids to do something. -danjel (talk to me) 07:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it unfortunately kind of sticks on our maxim 'verifiability, not truth'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know... We'll see if someone has a go, otherwise I'll set a kid on it to find good sources. -danjel (talk to me) 07:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Davidson Institute for Talent Development - WP:COI & WP:SPAM?

While you're around...

This article came to my attention courtesy of an attempt by User:Mdlugosz (who seems to only edit in regards to this organisation) adding it to Gifted education. Seems a bit spammy to me, and the WP:COI is glaring... The article has been tagged for deletion before, but was resolved. There are a few references, but... What do you think? -danjel (talk to me) 07:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... does ring a tad spammy.

1. is a blog
2. is a press release - a primary source
3. The DI is mentioned but it is not an in-depth article about the organisation.
4. primary source
5. primary source
6. http://www.davidsongifted.org/think/think/Article/THINK_Summer_Institute___Frequently_Asked_Questions_371.aspx acceptable RS
7. NYT a veyr RS, supports the claims to existence but is not about the subject. mentions are fleeting.
8. primary source
9. not about the subject; Fleeting mention. regional state newspaper blog
10. primary source
11. Private web site and forum. Not RS
12. used before
13. CBS news. Reliable.

My guess is that it might just pass a AdF. But it needs cleaning up. User has a lot of deleted articles and is clealry an SPA but we have to AGF. Anyway, that's my take on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I took a little look through all of them... I'll have a bit more of a think about it. Out for now. -danjel (talk to me) 08:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Petrie Terrace State School

I have made a comment at Talk:Petrie Terrace State School#Notability. In short I agree that in it's current state it's not notable and should be redirected but suggest leaving it for a few days to see if the efforts to show notability come to anything. Dpmuk (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If no one comes forward to do anything about it in the next however long, can you please userfy it to User:Danjel/Petrie Terrace State School? Cheers. -danjel (talk to me) 11:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - with talk page. No redirect. Let anyone else know who might be working on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. As soon as school goes back after the holidays I'll have a student researching it. -danjel (talk to me) 11:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Request an RfA nomination

Just before my RfA, an idea came to me, regarding RfA nominations and I alluded to it during my RfA on the reform page. I've created my concept as an essay in my userspace, and I thought I'd get a second opinion on it. I was wondering what you thought? User:Worm That Turned/Request an RfA nomination. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to say that I thought this would have benefits of increasing RfAs and decreasing SNOWs and NOTNOWs... if it worked well. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It might work and there's certainly no harm in trying. However, we already have a plethora of essays on the subject (and of course I've added some too!), and I remain convinced that nobody reads them until it's too late. You can lead a horse to water... I do sometimes get asked for reviews like this (2 this week already), and often by email. Generally it only takes me 5 minutes to tell them they are not ready for it. The longest part is writing the answer and giving them the list of stuff to read! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the idea was in relation to my "request a nomination" idea at the reform page, I'll mention it there next, also will try to tidy up the essay tomorrow, maybe even add a picture! Glad I'm not way off base though - I thought you might get some (due to your advice page) and I know WSC gets a few. Like you say, worth a shot :) Worm^TT · (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already done some basic CE on your essay for you. BTW, do you know this?: Wikipedia:Editor review/deletion edits review Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. As to the other, no I hadn't seen it, but I think it's a great idea. I don't think I've got enough experience there to put my name down, but I might well do in the future. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"...why not send an email to a person on the list below." The period should be changed into a question mark. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 20:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford)

Hi Kudpung,

Could you have a look at this list for me and give your thoughts/support/opposition as it is currently lacking in reveiwers!

Thanks Glanis^Talk 19:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rochelle article

I never thought about redirecting to the city article instead of the school district article - good idea. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 05:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

TEB HAT

PLEASE reconsider the deletion of my article on the TEB HAT,,,they are very popular here in the uk,this is not a hoax but a real thing...many thanks Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockshad (talk • contribs) 14:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that article was clearly unencylopedic. It would have to jump through an enormous number of policy hoops to be accepted, including, for example, a write up in the Times, the Independent, or the Guardian. Do take a moment to read up on our policies for WP:NOTABILITY and reliable sources. Perhaps you wold like to write an article about something else (but do it in your user space first), or help out with some other editing tasks. Don't hesitate to ask me if you would like some suggestions.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford)/archive1.
Message added 16:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've responded to your query on image copyright, could you just check I have the right end of the stick wrt National Portrait Gallery images and that I'm not breaking any law/wp policy with my understanding. Thanks Glanis^Talk 16:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

templates

I know just whom to ask, and I shall , over the weekend. I think we should gradually --very gradually--do them all, & I agree with you it is better to just do them successively, rather than ask, unless there turn out to be objections. I wouldn't think that way about changing policy, but this is just the mechanics. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you David. That's exactly what I had in mind. There's also a new problem with the 'advertising & promotion' one. It's been changed in last couple of days to a text that only address advertising business - the mention of promoting any other entity has been dropped and there are now two identical uw in Twinkle for it. Not helpful for political campaign managers, autobios, and bands. I changed a couple of uw and there were no complaints. My problem with the others was the layers of contingent templates which goes beyond my knowledge of the way php. calls are used in our templates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

YGM for a heads up

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.-- DQ (t) (e) 02:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Received. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nicolai Levashov

If you believe the article to be biased, please specify its drawbacks. Most of assertions are supported by references, and there are ten times more references in the ru-wiki (but most of them are in Russian). Levashov is called healer and psychic both by his partisans and critics, the deaths of his patients is a documented fact. He is oficially accused as an antisemit by Russian government (although he claims he is not an antisemit but antijudaist), his organization is blamed as a destructive cult by Russian Orthodox Church and religious scientists. He is called pseudoscientist by several American and Russian competent and well-known scientific skeptics. What is biased from your point of view? Even Levashov himself would agree with half of the statements of the article (because he doesn't think it's discreditably). Pasteurizer (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have already asked another administrator for a second opinion. My first impression was that the article reads biased against the subject and may need cleaning up for neutrality. I am not disputing the references. Note that the tags are not requests for deletion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

From JamesBWatson's talk page:

The article is certainly not written in the neutral tone that is required, so at the very least the POV tagging is justified. A quick glance through some of the references (I don't at present have time for a more thorough check) suggest that at least some of the negative material is well-sourced, and the general thesis of the article is therefore probably sound. However, even if it is all well-sourced, an article written in such totally negative terms does seem to satisfy the description "a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" at Wikipedia:Attack page. My opinion is that it does qualify for deletion as an attack page, but that it might be more constructive to try to rewrite it in more neutral terms than to delete it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

German translation

Hi Kudpung. Thanks I'll bear that in mind. I'm currently puzzling over a good translation for Einschartung and Scharte - wind gap, col and saddle are all candidates, but I'm not sure they capture the jagged gaps between Alpine peaks all that well. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not a geologist, but years wandering around the Alps should have taught me these. If 'wind gap' means something in English to geologists then I would say it sounds about right for Einschartung - I seem to remember it as a deepish V-shaped cleft between two peaks. Col, for which I would use either Gebirgspass or Gerbirgssattel can be either smooth like a horse's back or jagged as long as its the lowest point of a ridge or saddle between two peaks that can be used as a pass. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— TimL (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Deciding it was my brother or friend(The Unknown One deleted article)

Listen i accidentlly put my brother because i was talking to him at the same moment i was on the computer, this was an IMPORTANT article i thought everyone should know about, not disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanx51 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia is not Facebook, and therefore we cannot have 6 billion articles for the 6 billion people on the planet. See WP:NOTE for more details. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to be reminded of the nonsense you wrote, I can e-mail you a copy of it. If you really need to publish such trite inventions, consider writing a free blog, joining FaceBook, MySpace, or some other site for young people. Alternatively, if you really want to see your work in writing, you can read Guidance for younger editors and join the ranks of the children who contribute in a mature manner here. You'd get a lot of kudos for it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

IM NOT YOUNG, WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT?! Ryanx51 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if you're not, but I think it's probably from your writing style, and because the vast majority of the 500 or so pages like that which we have to delete every day are created by very young people. Now if you're serious about wanting to contribute to the Wikipedia, why don't you read some of our guidelines like the ones listed on your talk page, and help out with some general editing or writing something worthwhile. We give you a free sandbox to prepare your articles, and we can check it out for you before it goes to an article page - and please don't shout :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright i shall do that. Ryanx51 (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

I remember reading the talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor, who claimed he did not respond to the orange box because he was editing a section (Something to do with removing an image). Unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of that editor, although I remember you mentioned something to someone along the lines of "We've lost another editor". I would greatly appreciate it if you could recall that name and tell it to me. Thanks. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 03:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It was most likely in connection with an RfA - someone who retired as a result of contentious !voting. Check this table, but the comments column might not be complete, and this table which has links direct to the RfAs. A further table here is also extremely informative but at the moment goes up to 8 April. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to update these tables (except the official RfA one which is done by a bot) - your help would be much appreciated.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, this is pretty interesting... Well, I've added a few, though I'm not sure if I did it right. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Running something by you

Hey Kudpung. I've been thinking about what we can implement without difficulty to help improve RfA. Your mention of edit notices has been running through my mind, because when I started mine, I didn't really remember it any warnings. I've been doing some investigation, and it looks like we have an edit notice for transclusion, but the one for page creation is the standard RfA voter one. The fact is, by the time you transclude, you've created the RfA, you're just working out how to move it and have enough to worry about

And suddenly, my technical GENIOUS struck me (ok, I might be over playing it, but I'm quite smug here)... Why not change the group notice if the page doesn't yet exist (ie if they are creating the page). So, I've tested it on Template:Editnotices/Group/User:Worm That Turned. By using the "ifexist" and the "fullpagename" magic words, you can get different notices if you edit an existing page or create a new one.

So, the question becomes - what notice should we put in for people creating new RfA pages? I'd be willing to put it in WP:BOLDly, but it should be very noticeable - for example I don't think flashing (like your edit notice) would be a bad thing. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Great minds think alike. As I lay in bed last night thinking about it, I was wondering about putting the same decorative edit notice I made, on the other page. However, I'm not an expert at this, and I was worried in case a Group Notice would show up on every RfA page, including at the top of the main RfA page during a debate. If you've got it figured, go for it, just use the same edit notice I created. It's not a template, it's just hard coded HTML, but it could be put on its own page and be transcluded in curly brackets like a template. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a link to the one you created? Worm^TT · (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it the one on the transclude page? Worm^TT · (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&action=edit Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. editing an existing Rfa vs creating a new one - excuse me while I feel smug. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I read and replied to that ;) Keep up :P Worm^TT · (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooff! About the video conference? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I replied saying I wouldn't be able to do it, due to the fact such things are blocked on this internet connection. Apologies Worm^TT · (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it - I just got one saying I've been accepted for OTRS and was replying to it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't realise you'd applied, well done :) Worm^TT · (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: BestPrice.gr post deletion

Greetings,

BestPrice.gr was deleted citing: (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content) However, I fail to understand how significance is measured on there, especially when the description was more or less similar to other services with a Wikipedia page presence operating in the same industry.

Please clarify.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinshiro (talk • contribs) 10:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. BestPrice.gr was deleted because it does not meet our notability criteria for companies at WP:ORG. It it does, then it will need to be supported by our policy for very reliable independent sources at WP:RS. For more information see also our general policy on notability at WP:NOTABILITY. There may well be similar articles, but with over 3 million articles on the English Wikipedia, we haven't got round to deleting all the unsuitable ones yet. For more information on this please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

RevDel request

Since you deleted the attack page and I know you are online, would you mind zapping this nasty attack? (I've emailed OS, but they can sometimes take some time.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have already mailed OS an hour ago. Looks like the entry to the DAB has already gone. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please could you send me a copy of that article? Also, I can't understand why it's viewed as a "nasty attack". How could it be re-written to meet Wikipedia's rules? At no point did I write anything untrue - even the part on the bizarre, erotic fiction! I also never named the Wikipedia author but merely pointed out that there is a lot of speculation about the real author. Whoever David Rose is, he has been systematically editing the foes of Johann Hari on Wikipedia.

I don't believe you could have read all of Jack of Kent's blog post or checked the edit history on the referenced wikipedia entries in the time between my writing the article and your deletion.

You are clearly an experience Wikipedian, I look forward to your constructive criticism and a method for the retrieval of my work.

Thank you for your time Nic Doye (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore see this new section on David R's User talk page. None of these comments are by me. I use my real name at all times.

Nic Doye (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot release this material until we have heard back from the Oversighters. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I did get a reply to my oversight ticket, and they suppressed the information. They also said: "There a warning on the editors talk page. Please block or request a block if this continues." Thus you are not getting that information back. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain the phrase "There a warning on the editors talk page. Please block or request a block if this continues."? - is this the section about 'David r from Meth Productions' entitled "Spectator, Nick Cohen & Wikipedia" on: [1]?

While your "oversighters" can "suppress" my contribution, by my understanding of Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License in particular, my Moral rights (copyright law) mean that you can not deny me a copy of my own work, without being in violation of the licence I have granted you it under. Please send me my work back.

In further news, Hari has been suspended by the Independent. Perhaps because of his plagiarism (revealed nearly a fortnight ago) or perhaps because he may have used this pseudonym as a sockpuppet (only revealed this week). Nic Doye (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTYOURS. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Nic, you're also rapidly approaching WP:NLT. Tread carefully. —SW— ^confabulate 04:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the links to WP:NOTYOURS and the polite comment from User:Snottywong on WP:NLT. WP:NOTYOURS does not concern itself with deletes though - all normal edits allow any author to retrieve their own version for their own use. I think it's disgusting that you won't let me have access to a piece of material, which I wrote in good faith to share with the community. But the overlords of Wikipedia refuse to extend me the same courtesy. As you continue to refuse to talk about the details of the case and answer any question I put to you, I am going to draw a line under this issue.

Nic Doye (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Doye, even if we wanted to send you a copy, no one here can. Even administrators like Kudpung can no longer view this material. If you wish to pursue it, you will have to take the matter up with the oversighters. See here for how to contact them. --Danger (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Danger - nice to get some information. Thank you for your help.

The article I wrote for Wikipedia is now somewhat redundant. Both The Spectator and the Huffington Post (especially) have published the same story - which brings me back to how I was viewed as "nasty" for writing the same thing (but with references and a neutral tone). I feel the editor was too hasty in performing a speedy delete. Were the four references read? Were the 5 or 6 Wikipedia articles, and their history read?

In other news User:David_r_from_meth_productions has been blocked by admins and identified as a sockpuppet (a claim by others that was discussed in my article). One of the other accusations made at this user discussed in my article may sound offensive but is however true. Facts are facts, and editors should check them instead of assuming that this was some angry hate piece.

I personally feel very let down by Wikipedia in this one instance.

Nic Doye (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You're always free to bring your complaint to WP:DRV if you really believe it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. —SW— ^confabulate 18:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks User:Snottywong but I suspect that when The Independent have finished their investigation, we'll be able to put the facts on David Rose's true name's Wikipedia page. I shall not attempt to pre-empt this, even though I believe the truth and accusations should be printed and discussed in the open. Cheers 90.218.44.250 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - wasn't logged in - that's my IP address. Nic Doye (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin q for ya

Not something I've really had to worry about before, but what do we do when a blocked editor uses an IP address to ask for an unblock? I assume we block the IP, in the same way we would block the user? (Haven't actually had to do it yet!) Since you were involved in at least one unblock request, I thought I'd ask you :) [2] - For the record, I've no recollection of accepting them as an adoptee... Worm^TT · (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He was blocked: (del/undel) 10:33, 9 April 2011 HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs | block) blocked WanderingScholars (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MusicLogger) (unblock | change block).

I don't think it's block evasion if they use their IP adress and admit to who they are. I'll post a link here in a moment to a similar situation I was involved in last week. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, if this is about WanderingScholar, this is just the tip of a mega sockpuppetry thing. It resurcafes again months laer when he thinks the coast is clear. You need to check the SPI archives for the sockmaster WorcsInfo. There is no chance of adopting this one. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no, it's not the WorcsInfo one, but here's thelink you need: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MusicLogger/Archive

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't intending to adopt! I don't know where the adoption thing came from, or anything about them. I just went to User:WanderingScholars and saw about 5 unblock requests plus a bit of discussion and thought I'd mosey on over and ask for your opinion on what to do next. I'll have a read of the SPI Worm^TT · (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And the example I was looking for is User talk:1007D. You'll also need to see the messages he sent to DeltaQiuad at User talk:DeltaQuad/Archives/2011/July. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your assistance please

An article on Mohammad Nasim Fariqi is currently before afd. You deleted an earlier version as A7. I didn`t realize an earlier version had been deleted before I attempted to rescue it.

I admonished the nominator for only giving the newbie who started the article ten minutes before making their nomination.

Could you graft on the revision history of the versions you deleted to the current revision history?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the version I deleted contained one short sentence and nothing else:

Mohammad Nasim Faqiri was born in Tegari village of Mehtarlam city of Laghman province in 1958.

and was an autobiography started by the subject himself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I would still appreciate the original deleted versions to the contribution history.

Can I ask how you knew that the original deleted article was an autobiography started by the subject himself... Some western commentators were willing to assert that Taliban leader Abdullah Mehsud and Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud were brothers, apparently solely based on them sharing name Mehsud. The newbie who created the current version has Fariqi as part of their wiki-id. I would not conclude from this that he is closely related to Mohammad Nasim Fariqi. I looked into that Mehsud claim. There are something like 100,000 individuals in the Mehsud tribe, who all have the name Mehsud. If the article creator is related he could be one of the very distant cousins who shares the Fariqi name. Alternately, he could be an unrelated admirer. Some people do choose wiki-id that are the same as, or based on, that of a hero.

FWIW, if you look at the nominator`s talk page, you will see many admonisions for being overly hasty and for lapses from BITE. Restoration of the earlier versions would show more clearly if there was evidence of BITE or over hastiness in that deletion.

Did you delete the original version because someone tagged it with a speedy tag?

Is the contributor who started the current version the same contributor who started the original version?

How long passed between article creation and deletion of the original version?

I`d like to know all these things, so, unless there is a reason I am not picking up on, could you please graft on the deleted versions to the revision history?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the original article was so short with only one edit (its creation) that it does not justify the human resources involved to do all the research you are asking for. The procedurally deleted article was by User talk:MusaddiqFaqiri` and was entitled Mohammad Nasim Faqiri. Most of this is information you could have found yourself and you will be able to look up the rest of the available details yourself from page logs and histories. Please also consider providing links such as I have used here (and diffs if necessary) when discussing articles or their edits. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 15:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied Tim1357 ^talk 15:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My recall

Hello! I've been mulling over criteria for what I feel would be acceptable for recall and I'd like it to where only a select few editors I trust can ask for my recall. I'd like you to be one of those editors. I've outlined the process here. If there is any reason you would not like to be on this list, for example maybe you object to recall or perhaps you don't want to deal with the drama involved, could you please let me know?--v/r - TP 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy and honoured to be on that list. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

NPP defcon userbox

Updated hourly. {{User:Snottywong/NPPdefcon}} —SW— ^yak 03:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(defcon image moved to User:Kudpung/Dashboard--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A question

Hey Kudpung, I was just curious as to what you use to get the number of page views at your RfA criteria page. Could you let me know? Swarm ^X 23:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm guessing that it's the same one used for DYKs. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 23:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) On any page, look at its history, and up near the top right you should see a "Page view statistics" link -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. I thought perhaps there was a way to see "total number of views" that I wasn't aware of. Swarm ^X 00:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RfX Editnotices

You'll need to create one for our current candidate. Thanks. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 00:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied

To your e-mail. Courcelles 03:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Courcelles 03:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Yes I am sure about to get help by you and reading the deleting criteria. I'll concern you about deleting criteria if I can't understand that. Thanks for help.--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 02:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I know you are editing the encyclopedia with the best of iontentions. Would you please now consider not patrolling any more articles until you have read those pages, and I have asked you a few questions about how to tag new pages. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll not tag any article you ask me about them, means you test me. In this way I will understand all criteria I think. I am sure you will make me a good patroller.--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 02:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. So stop tagging new articles now, and read those pages (Here they are again: WP:NPP, WP:DELETION, WP:CSD). And in a day or two I will ask you some questions on a special page I'll make). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok SIr, I am sure I'll pass that. I am starting reading these pages. Thanks but remember.--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 02:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have made a special page at User:Kudpung/NPP mentoring. If you have any questions in the meantime, please ask them there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll do exactly what you need..Ok? Thanks Sir.--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 02:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting a reasonable approach to these problems. I'm sure the suggestions I have made will make you into a great page patroller. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am ready for reading, but I am a little busy today, I'll read it tonight or tomorrow, then our course will start properly. Thanks for it.--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 07:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Take your time, there is no rush .I am going to be very busy over the weekend too because I am flying to Europe. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me your contact ID. if you don't mind for communicate with you, when you are not Wikipedia.--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 07:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not on Wikipedia, I'm not where I can be contacted at all. You can also send me email through Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

From where Can I send you email through Wikipedia?--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 08:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

From the top of this page in the 'User' tab. You will need to have email enabled in your user preferences. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

About some things

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect page

The page _Incremental_Service_Awards is redirected for the purpose of type categorization. Furthermore it is a userpage which means no others but the user can edit it.Iamiyouareyou (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The page Incremental Service Awards does not exist. Please see: Wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates, and redirects. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of text

Dear Sir I am not sure how to do this but perhaps if I ask straight out you might understand. Can you place the text you deleted onto my user page. I seems I have sinned at the first page. I must say this is quite a confusing process. I shall get the hang of it exentually, I guess. Brian Cusworth 1

Hi Brian. Please provide a link to the actual article name in square brackets like this: [[articlename]], and sign your name correctly using four tildes like this --~~~~, or use the signature button in the editing toolbar above. I will then be able to locate the page. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As you have not replied, I have done extensive research, located your correct user name and the deleted material. This article is not suitable for insertion in the encyclopedia and was deleted under several sections of policy. If you have Wikipedia email enabled I will email it to you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Maris Stella High School

Thanks so much for your note. I agree that a rangeblock seems like overkill. I'm all for semi-protection, especially if you're watching it. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki en.Wiki site software change

Hi. Your input is needed here. If you are not the person who does this, please let me know who to contact. A discussion is taking place to fix the duration of the trial and it is anticipated that the changes are expected to be ready for implementation 11 Aug 03:00 UTC. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

From the look of it, the only change necessary from a developer perspective is the addition of the different notice for anonymous users, although it might be possible to handle this in script (or just use a combined message - don't see why you can't just say "you must be logged in, with an account at least X old with Y edits" to both groups). The Wikimedia IT people just need to change the configuration setting determining which user groups can create pages. You should probably file a bug (or two) along these lines, as this is how such changes are tracked and discussed. I'm not personally involved in Wikimedia's infrastructure - I'm too busy running WikiFur! :-) GreenReaper (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your expert advice on Amazing People!

Hello Kudpung, Just read that you are off on a journey, hope all goes well. I am writing to follow up on your kind offer to review/assist with my creating of a wiki article for The Amazing People club. As per your advice, I have created a sub page and am working on it and wanted to see if you think we are heading in the right direction, as you know, I feel quite passionate that this is something that should be there. Some things to note and which we are awaiting - We have just signed contracts with large institutions such as Ebsco, Global Grid For Learning, Vodomodo, etc and some more discussions with very reputable organisations are underway. This will soon be announced and there will be a link/source for reference which can be added. Are you pls able to take a look at what we have 'drafted' and offer your opinion. Many thanks in advance, your kind offer to assist with this is highly appreciated. Kind regards, Marion Lenmar123 (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had a cursory glance at your draft. I am concerned about the use of the pronoun 'we' in your message above, and I would ask you to read our policy on conflicts of interest band understand its implications efore you go any further. I am still not sure that this article will pass our criteria for notability and I will give it a more thorough review when I get settled in the UK at the beginning of next week. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Answer

Hi pal

Hi was thinking of something a little more targeted on the problem. The EAR page gathers lots of different kind of requests, while a simple category or list of articles in need of editing would be IMHO better suited (like the ones you linked on the VP, thanks).

About the italian language on my page, I usually write in english to english users, but answer in Italian to italian ones. This is actually allowed by the rules. Note that most of those messages came from vandals of it.wiki coming here to harass me. --Jollyroger (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The EAR page gathers a lot of requests but we are very quick to answer them and are very good at directing people to a more appropriate help desk. I think GOCE is the optimal venue for translation issues. I work there too ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are hired as my personal proofreader ;-D --Jollyroger (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Theunknownnun

I thought that, if you haven't already noticed, you might find it interesting to know that only one of the many articles (13 by my count) created by Theunknownnun still exists, and that one is being considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Wade. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks James. I've been watching the process very closely :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Kudpung/NPP mentoring

Hello Sir, can I talk and question with you on this page User:Kudpung/NPP mentoring?--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 15:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no, not now, it's 23:00 (11 pm) here and I'm about to go to bed. In the meantime you can read everything on that page. Read the linked pages if you have not done so already, then prepare yourself by answering the questions on the page. Then, I will look at it in the morning. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No I mean that, Can I talk on that page instead of this talk page.?--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I assume Kudpung is asleep by now, I'm going to suggest the answer is yes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That would probably be better, actually, because you won't bring up the Orange Bar of Doom every time you have a question. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Assassin's Creed's talk page.
Message added 06:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 06:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Assassin's Creed's talk page.
Message added 10:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 10:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at User:Kudpung/NPP mentoring.
Message added 11:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 11:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your question #8 at N5iln's RFA

Hi, N5iln will not be able to see the link you provided for question #8 as he is not an administrator, checkuser, oversighter, or researcher. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My bad - I forgot that, of course` it's already been deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Malvern Hills

Thank you once again for your kind words and encouragement. I would be happy to nominate the Malvern Hills article for GA status, but as a relative newcomer to Wikipedia I do not fully understand the process of nominating (or reviewing) an article for GA status.Mhygelle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Take your time to check it all out at WP:GA, don't do anything yet but let me know what you think. If you feel it's likely to pass, maybe I'll nominate it for you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the article meets GA criteria as references have not been provided for several sources of information. Unfortunately, I have been unable to source references for the following:

• Geography - Section.
• Geology – First paragraph re Malvern Lineament.
• History – Second paragraph: "...there is some debate whether this has enriched or damaged the ecology of the Hills....Certainly the quarrying has changed the Hills forever, including creating habitats for frogs, toads, newts and other small animals..." and "Some parts are used for personality development for children, especially deprived children, and abseiling and rock climbing courses are offered".

Any advice on how to proceed would be gratefully received. Mhygelle (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The radical solution is to cut any unsourced material. The reviewers have got very hot on possible plagiarisms and unsourced additions (I'm not saying that you added these items). On the other hand, I will be flying to the UK tomorrow and will be in Malvern for the next 8 weeks. If you have any ideas for sources I could look them up in the library. The library has a good selection of private publications and OOP books on Malvern and the hills. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:British camp central mound 2005.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:British camp central mound 2005.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 18:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This only concerns an image description page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gihan Sami Soliman

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gihan Sami Soliman. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for looking after Assassin's Creed Happy Friendly Gift Giver (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you whoever you are! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello respectable Sir Kudpung, congratulations for getting barnstar for looking after me. I am kidding Sir, don't mind, I am your student.--—AssassiN's Creed ^(talk) 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

UniNet Warning

This is a warning.Please do not make distructive edits to Wikipedia or delete pages nnecessaryily, like you did to Collective Brain. It is against what Wikipedia is for and detroys the project. Contact me on MY TALK PAGE for an expanation of this warning.

Thomasfoster96 (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see and read carefully the deletion rationale and message on your talk page. See also WP:CIVIL, and WP:NLT. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and more instructions: see the talk page header on this talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is your second warning.Please do not attack users, especially new users. It is against what Wikipedia is for and detroys the project. Contact me on MY TALK PAGE for an expanation of this warning. If you violate these warning again, you will face consequences.

Thomasfoster96 (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The only attacks are on your part. Please follow the links you have been given in messages here and on your talk page, to our various policies before posting here again. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that he's joking. --Σ ^talk_contribs 17:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at BigDwiki's talk page.
Message added 17:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDwiki (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kheow Sundarakul na Jolburi

Hello Kudpung, could you please have a look at this article? We could need some translation review there. Regards, De728631 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Hi. Cleaned up, copy edited, and refs checked. A machine translation of the much shorter Thai article would have read: University City is a beautiful green Ehgahammarda at Poebs beautiful daughters in the Department of fat (from the City University Rachskul beautiful) and the government said in a Ehgahammarda of King Rama I wear. A son and a daughter. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! De728631 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD

Thanks for deleting the article Elite Pedro. Some creature which might be a god or an animal or a man is always a blatant hoax? Not really. Many deities in various pantheons have been variously described as any combination of human, animal, fire, wind, water, rocks household objects or planets. See Pantheon (gods), and for instance, Armenian mythology and determine if a stub could be written about one of those gods or spirits as short and vague as the one CSD'd. Monsters and spirits include dog-like Aralez who lick the wounds of warriors, Sahapet who are in the form of serpents, Nhang who are like seals. See Bastet from Egyptian mythology. One could write a stub which said "Many discuss where Bastet's story first began. Was she god, woman, lioness or a domestic cat? Some associated her with perfume jars." Your notion would CSD such an article as a blatant hoax, because a short stub about them sounds odd to you, or you never heard of them. My deletion criterion was a valid one, though the article seemed like a hoax as well. An article is often a hoax and an attack article, or lacks context. An article about something from mythology you are unfamiliar with is likely to seem hoax-like. The fact that you had previously deleted it per a different one does not mean that you are right and everyone else patrolling new pages is wrong and needs your correction. Edison (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Or you could use {{db-multiple}}. --Σ ^talk_contribs 19:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the philiosophical lecture Edison. Why didn't you delete it yourself, knowing (of course) that it was a recreation? My philosophy is "encyclopedist" rather than "inclusionist" or "deletionist." I am regularly assailed as part of an "Inclusionist cabal" and as part of a "Deletionist cabal" by those with whom I disagree in AFD debates. - ditto. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, than you for the explanation, appropriate for a new editor, about how CSD works. That said, please keep up the good work. Edison (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't always check for DTTR, 'tis true, but it is small collateral damage compared with the total train wreck that new page patrolling is. It's good to know that some admins are doing some patrolling. Keep up the good work ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd hate to admit how many stubs I have judged to be hoaxes(G3) or nonsense(G1, G2) or lacking context (A10) sufficient to be sure if it is nonsense or just bad writing until a little research at Google Book or Google News archive informed me that it was a badly written stub about something arguably of encyclopedic notability. If it is a badly but sincerely written stub about something encyclopedic, then in many cases there is already a better article in Wikipedia, perhaps titled with a different spelling, giving a different ground (A10)for CSD or for replacing the stub with a redirect. The good outcome is when any inappropriate article is gone. Tagging via Twinkle automatically puts a message on the article creators talk page. Does straight-up deletion do that? It is a pain to go to the "Message template" page and find an appropriate message and then paste it on the user's talk page. Edison (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What about 'the thing'? --contribs 00:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle gives you a semi automatic option if you prefer to delete immediately. It opens the creator's user page in a new browser window, and offers the standard menu of welcome and warning templates with the article name already filled in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Have a nice trip

Are you expert in researching in the UK? i.e. finding material that is difficult to locate on the web but could be found by someone physically in the UK? --Greenmaven (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Not really an expert. I can go to local libraries, museums, town halls and the city records office, and court archives. Mainly only in Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, and consult their archives. Same for local industries and newspaper records. Let me know what you need and I'll give it a try. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In those parts I would only have a family history interest in Herefordshire, near Wye-on-Ross --Greenmaven (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD

Hi Kudpung, I was quite surprised by your multiple messages about the precision of my SD nominations. I have been flagging potential speedy deletions for many years and found it rather condescending to be referred back to WP:NPP like a novice editor. In all that time, you are the only admin who has taken exception with the categories I have nominated. Of course, I cannot go back and dispute your categorisation since the articles have been deleted (guess the nomination was not inappropriate). I can only reiterate that I have nominated hundreds (possibly thousands) of poor articles for speedy deletion, and will continue to do so to the best of my ability. I am sorry if you cannot accept that like every other admin in the past. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I happen to be part of the team at WikiMedia that is researching for reform and improvement of the NPP system. There is nothing discriminatory, and the fact that I am an admin is irrelevant - your taggings were entirely part of our random controls of how patrolling is going. Keep up the good work. I will not bother you again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would second that maybe the tone of the "You used the wrong category" message could be improved, while still letting the first tagger know that the article was deleted. The article patroller should get a pat on the back without feeling like it was a kick in the rear. I would add that Kudpung is to be commended for taking the time to note on other editor's pages when their work could be improved, since such posts rarely get a "Thanks!" in reply. Edison (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

• News and notes: WMF Annual plan; Article Feedback tool; university outreach; brief news

• In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news

• WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!

• Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual

• Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder

• Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A question

I saw ayou asked the question, "What is the default CSD criterion?" at an RFA, and that puzzled me. I've never heard of a "default" criterion for speedy deletion. It's now eating away at me, as unanswered questions often do... Would you be so kind as to enlighten me? (Oh and please leave a talkback on my page? Thanks!) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The simple and only answer is: There isn't one. Only the categories that exist may be used and articles must match then accurately to qualify for speedy deletion. There is not a 'catch all', and an articles that does not clearly fit one of the criteria must be either PRODed or sent to RfA. I suppose it was a tricky question in a way, but the policy is so fundamental that even the youngest and newest New Page Patroller knows it (or should). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "tricky question", it's a trick question. Given that the candidate did not express a strong desire to work in CSD (rather the opposite), CSD minutae would have been an unfair enough reason to oppose anyway without throwing in questions with secret answers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe anyone who has the power to delete things should at minimum understand the methods of deletion. (Also, you send articles to AfD, not RfA.) --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Trick questions should not be used at RfA, in my opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought as much but I wasn't exactly sure. Thanks! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus on a) What kind of questions may/may not be asked, b) How many questions may be asked, and c) - most importantly - whether questions are optional or not.

IMO, there are also better venues for some kinds of discussion.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

As you may or may not know, my RFA was closed unanimously successful (65/0/0). I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank you for taking the time to comprehensively review my deleted contribs and linking some very useful reading prior to my RFA. Thanks again and very best regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on bowling a maiden over - a rare phenomenon at RfA these days! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for your support! Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--—Assassin'S Creed ^(talk) 18:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The wanderer returns

Looks like our East Anglian friend is back. I just blocked User:7ooo who quacked rather too loudly. Best, nancy 08:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had already noticed but I wasn't sure. I guess two of us with the same impression adds more ducks to the row. Well done! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I've been cleaning up Category:Places in Leeds and have identified 15 one-line articles on non-notable places, ranging alphabetically from Alwoodley Park to Woodhouse Carr, all created by the same person. I'm intending to put them up for AfD (something I've never done before) but thought I'd just check with you that this won't rock any boats. (Actually, I can't see how they've survived for so long, but maybe there's an explanation?) Best. --GuillaumeTell 20:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're fairly sure that their deletion is uncontroversial, why not PROD them first? That way they'll get procedurally deleted after 7 days instead of straining resources at AfD. If the PRODS get contested, then you can take them to AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think that the deletions would be uncontroversial to pretty much everyone except their creator, so it's certainly worth a try. I'm off to bed now-ish, but will read through the (stodgily written) procedures again tomorrow, just to make sure, before proceeding. --GuillaumeTell 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you come across any village or settlement stubs, or superfluous redirects, by any of these socks (we're still trying to clean up a year later), let me or Nancy know and we'll delete them summarily per WP:CSD#G5. No need for PROD or AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Good God! 56 socks! Something unhealthy (or obsessive) there. I'll keep an eye open. I'm about to start the PROD processes and will see what happens. --GuillaumeTell 16:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: no sign of the above person. I PRODded all except one of the one-liners (Jaw Hill, where I found a RS). Yesterday, an editor ingeniously turned the rest of them into redirects to established articles for adjacent settlements (e.g. Alwoodley Park redirecting to Alwoodley), which maybe I should have thought of myself. A further editor has suggested mentioning the redirect names in the established articles, which is probably worth doing, too. Anyway, this all seems a satisfactory outcome. P.S. Might you be visiting Yorkshire during your current UK sojourn? I'll buy you a pint if so! --GuillaumeTell 21:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

RFA reform 2011

I've initiated a new thread at WT:RFA2011 regarding the next course of action of the task force and RFA reform in general that might interest you. I'd suggest we notify the members of the task force to get further input. Hopefully, in lieu of endless discussion, we can begin putting some verbs into our sentences and make RFA a bit more inviting. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with it :) I know I'd love some forward movement, but I'm just that bit too busy to do the pushing ATM. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest using the MessageDeliveryBot to inform the members of the task force of the impending discussion on the next course of action; however, I don't necessarily want to flood the thread with discussion, thus losing track of the original objective. If we could get a good representation of the various opinions of the task force members pertaining to our next course of action, that would be great. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When I kick-started this RfA reform project, I never imagined for a moment that change would come overnight, and I was well aware that it would be a relatively slow process. What we do have now, however, in contrast to the endless chat at WT:RfA, is a structured reform project; the first of its kind, and packed with research and statistics. Most of the issues needing reform have been identified and addressed, to the extent that some really possible solutions have been suggested and it's now up to the task force to set the priorities, and come up with some drafts for proposals that we can hone and then put to the broader community at RfC. A quick look over the trend in RfA candidacies over the past few months needs no sophisticated statistics to lend some credence to the predictions WereSpielChequers published in Signpost in August last year:

• Although the right candidates generally pass, the number of candidates of the right calibre is down and still dropping.
• In a year or two, we will be short of admins. The solution is not one of unbundling the tools.
• The reason why experienced, mature editors generally will not run for office, is because they are not prepared to enter the hostile environment of RfA and be humiliated, :::*This project seems to have slowed down, mainly for two reasons:
  • RfA has slowed down
  • We have an RfA reform task force of nearly 40 editors. The motives of some of them for joining are not apparent. Very few have actually contributed significantly.

The coordinators have been sending spam per MessageDeliveryBot to all the task force members roughly every 14 days or so to keep them up to date with new developments. Perhaps we need to coordinate the coordinators, but like me, some of them are also busy ATM pushing other major Wikipedia reforms forward, some of which are now going into effect. Let's keep the pot on the boil, but let's not overcook things either.
--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Kudpung. I share your concern, it being the reason that I said that I didn't want to flood the project with discussion, but I do think that it's worthwhile to consider possible courses of action. I'm not a proponent of quick change, but one mustn't forgo the consideration of that change, and that's my motive for initiating the thread that I linked to earlier. Thanks again, Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

• Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

• News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

• In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

• Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

• WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion

• Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Social network poisoning

Looks like an AfD candidate to me, what do you think many edits after your PROD? Enjoying the UK? Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I'm not really sure now. It's a poor translation from the Italian Wiki article which although longer, is also practically unreferenced. The refs were added following the talk page request I made two days ago. The subject matter seems legitimate enough, although I'm no expert, but I would like to be able to review the static refs and see page numbers before accepting them. AfD may be awkward - it might be a perfectly viable article that would get a lot of delete !votes from people (like me!) who don't really know if it's notable or not. The UK is damn cold. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the references don't seem to match the title of the article. Maybe that's the problem. I much prefer UK weather to the American south or west in the summer (or New York City for that matter, five summers there were too many). But I'm sunphobic. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at the Italian article in translation, it's nothing to do with social networks (eg Facebook) at all. "a technique of hacking that allows an attacker, in a switched LAN , " and ARP is Address Resolution Protocol, so it should be fixable. Just got to find out what this is normally called. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am a scholar of both social networks and the internet, and I have never before encountered the concept. Plus the translation is awful. I endorse the PROD. BTW, the User just put a link to it from the main social network article which is where I encountered it. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Weird, what was I looking at yesterday? I thought I'd clicked on the Italian link. Anyway, see Talk:Social network poisoning. It might be possible to save it by calling it 'Social network attacks' and stubbing it (however, now that I think about it, that should be a section in Social networking service shouldn't it? Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we've probably done all we can here, and that the discussion should preferably continue at Talk:Social network poisoning where it might attract solutions from a broader readership. I've added a comment there, and sent a talkback to the creator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I sent the creator a TB also. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)