User talk:Kudpung/Archive July 2010

Norman 'Chubby' Chaney

Our Gang's Chubby Chaney article has had an ongoing series of date of birth changes. Official records indicate his DOB was Nov 1, 1914. Studio records list it as Jan 18, 1918, and that is the date that most biographies use. There's a fair amount of discussion on his talk page, and this last update lasted for several months before it was reverted again. I'm reluctant to go changing it back to avoid an edit war, and would like a third party to review this again. You might note that I had previously asked for assistance in resolving the previous editing disputes. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stembark (talk • contribs) 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I had a look at this. The statement: 'The boy was obviously prepubescent when he was hired in 1929, and not 16 years old. The 1918 date of birth is most probably the correct one,' is conjecture (WP:POV) and cannot be used in the article unless it an be very accurately sourced as having been mentioned elswhere in a similar way (WP:RS). Also the fact that he might have appeared to have been prepubescent Tould also have been attributed to the fact that he may have been a late developer - who knows? The state death certificate gives the dob as Nov 1 - 1914. Photobucket is an online repository for private photos and is not a reliable source as the photos can be removed. However, I would suggest copying it before it gets taken down, uploading it to Wikipdeia, and displaying it in the erticle. A death drtificate is a US official document so ASAIK it is in the public domain and wold not pose any copyright problems. The two Ancesry.com references are not WP:RS as they clearly states that the dob is an estimation and 'about', and BTW it shows 1915 and neither 1914 nor 1918 - so these links should be removed from the page. Ancestry.com is not an official ensus record. To quote a census record as a source, a ling must be provided direct to the source.

Hope this helps.(BTW, please remember to sign your posts).--Kudpung (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

UAHS and newbie

Thanks for encouraging the newbie, but some of your edits and comments would go straight over the newbie's head. Others of your edits and comments could be classed as "biting the newbies". Don't get me wrong - procedurally you are quite correct and quite justified. But a newbie wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about. For example, your edit comment: "Inappropriate messages removed from article talk. Please post on user talk pages to address personal issues." I know exactly what you are talking about, but a newbie would have NO idea. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you also aware that some comments can just as easily also discourage seasoned 'oldies' from wishing to continue to contribute to this encyclopedia project? :( You have been massively refactoring a new user's talk page concerning an article that you and I have both helped to improve. I'm absolutely sure that this is being done in good faith, but as it includes the removal of standard request templates, essential advice for newcomers, and even polite encouragement, I'm not sure that deleting this advice is particularly helpful, especially as the new user has been informed that such messages are spam, and may not even have got round to reading em before they were deleted. Where do we go from here? Or do we? I'm concerned, because you have now 'spammed' my own talk page ;)--Kudpung (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you also aware that some comments can just as easily also discourage seasoned 'oldies' from wishing to continue to contribute to this encyclopedia project? - To be honest, no I'm not aware of that.

I'm absolutely sure that this is being done in good faith - Good. And thank you for explicitly saying so. Because my intention has been to help the newbie.

but as it includes the removal of ... essential advice for newcomers, and even polite encouragement - I believe I did not remove ANYTHING that was of the nature of "essential advice for newcomers" or "polite encouragement", either. That would not be consistent with my modus operandi.

especially as the new user has been informed that such messages are spam - I did NOT, at any time, inform the user that the messages were spam. What I did was reduce the volume of spam, and leave behind the core message so that the user could more easily understand what the posting was about.

Where do we go from here? - We continue to help the newbie, explain things to him, and work together to improve the page. I hope.

Thanks for your help. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI report filed on Sovietia

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_evasion:_Sovietia Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershire sauce

Salut Diti'! It's great to see your concern for the quality of our articles as you did to Worcestershire Sauce. However, please remember that this is is the English Wikipedia, and as such, articles about English subjects are best illustrated with original English images. Merci! --Kudpung (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! As you can see on the previous photo that was in the article (and is on it now, as you reverted the changes), its description page says the following: “Worcestershire sauce, as sold in Netherlands (2009)”. As you could see on my photo, it is the exact same product (because I bought it on import), except it is of packshot quality. I won’t revert you back because it is my photo and I wouldn’t be neutral by doing so, but I just wanted to point out the fact that an English photo or a French photo shouldn’t be treated differently when they illustrate the exact same English article. Bye! Diti the penguin — 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So much more reason why your edit might not have been such a good idea. But don't be disheartened - keep up the good work et si jamais il y a qqch que tu ne comprends pas, n'hésite pas à me demander :) --Kudpung (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still don’t understand… You want me to come to the United Kingdom, buy the same product, and take the same photo of it? Diti the penguin — 16:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Laisse tomber ;) --Kudpung (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do NOT refactor or reedit earlier comments on talk pages - it's not the way we do things here on the English Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. It is not my desire to be drawn into a conflict of any sort, and I hope neither party tries to goad the other into such conflict. However, I could perhaps make an independent observation. As a non-partisan observer, my first thought was whether there was justification for having both photos in the article, with accompanying text describing the popularity of the sauce across a range of countries. However, that is best done with text and citations from secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, articles, etc. The photos in question would not serve such a purpose. As an observer, they both look like the same type of bottle to me, taken from different angles and in different settings, with different attributions as to where they are found. That being the case, there is no gain from either replacing the existing photo.

Nor, given the similarity of the bottles, is there any gain from having them both in the article (unlike say, the photo of the Thai bottle, which is unmistakeably different to an independent reader). As a reader, that doesn't help me as much as the type of secondary sources I mention. Having said that, the reason for my comment is that this issue did get me thinking about the worldwide popularity of the sauce, and as I say, citations to that effect may be of help. But as a reader, I would want to see articles, not look-alike photos with differnt attributions. Regards Wotnow (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

transferred from article talkpage

Well, the whole point of that, the thing that decided me to take 35 minutes of my time to take a photo, is simply to help a reader looking for an illustration. How so? Well, I thought, like what we do on the French-speaking Wikipedia, that between a 220×513px photo taken with a cellphone/compact camera, and a 1,975×2,970px photo of the same object taken with a DSLR, the latter was preferable. Kudpung reverted me, I never reverted back and just thought “Fine, I took a certain amount of time to produce a quality work, I am reverted in a couple of seconds by someone who proposes his help but doesn’t help, I’ll just stop contributing here”. I must say I neither care about the bottle, nor about the revert, I would have simply left, but then I am told on my userpage the things that constitute the raison d’être of my current userpage. The only thing I and a couple of other French sysops understood in Kudpung’s speech (because, yes, I asked for a confirmation that I wasn’t the one to find such a thing really rude) is that, for Kudpung, “the English Wikipedia is made for English contributors who must take English photographs of English products (mine are English) in an English country” (I do exaggerate a little, but it is very much what I perceive of his messages). Understand that I am a little bit disgusted of being treated like that, with smiles.
Now, I will just leave you with your work on the English-speaking Wikipedia, I will stop giving away my photos to Wikimedia Commons (it has always been a pleasure until now), and, as Wotnow says, “it's better to just keep moving forward if possible, and to find things on which to constructively collaborate rather than fight over”. I will just continue making interwikis.
PS: If you consider me as a troll—I hope not, but if you do, it is really not intended—, please don’t feed me and go ahead. Diti the penguin — 02:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record:

• My so called comment has been taken out of context, rephrased, grossly exaggerated, given a blatant negative spin, and put into quotation marks. This may possibly be the standard way for editors to communicate on other Wikis, but it's not the way we discuss improvements to articles here on the en.Wiki.
• Nobody on the English Wikipedia has accused Diti of being a WP:TROLL or even hinted such a thing. None of his posts have a notion of trolling.
• The general consensus is that Diti's Good Faith edit to Worcestershire sauce was not required. It's nothing to get upset about - my edits get reverted all the time.
• Diti had been invited to help out on improving a very important article that ws based on a vey long, well researched, but very badly written French article.

--Kudpung (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

You are very kind! Thank you so much: it is truly appreciated. - Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

Mind specifying which article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs)

Riight. Take a look at my earliest contribution, and tell me if you think I a) need reminding that sometimes a fix is faster than a tag b) need reminding to sign my posts or c) in the case of (b), made an honest mistake while editing from my iPhone. In the case of (a) please explain how categorising and referencing could in any way be faster than adding the tag, since that seems to be your general argument. Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

a) Yes. b) Yes. In the case of a: Are there any reasons why stopping for a few seconds more to fix an article is less important than tagging it and moving on? (Rhetorical question.) In a recent, very long RfC involving over 400 editors, a great many were in favour of making 'fixing first' mandatory. The idea was only abandoned because nobody could come up with a technical method of enforcing it. In the case of b: The number of edits you are able to do at the speed of light on an iPhone is truly admirable, and the number errors you make and the number of complaints in your talk archives are only par for the course - I probably clock up more mistakes - and hence are acceptable (except perhaps for your occasional sarcasm). Personally I prefer the comfort of a nice big chair, a very big screen, a keyboard, a mouse, and a very powerful Mac desktop. How you edit Wikipedia is up to you but only a bad workman blames his tools. Now I suggest a bit of AGF and getting back to what we both prefer doing most and doing well: improving Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look. If you think that referencing and categorising an article can be done faster than semi-automatedly adding the tags, you're just wrong, plain and simple. You are misunderstanding completely; normally I edit from my Hellbeast. It has a GeForce 285GTS graphics card, a quad core processor, a load of other nice features, a massive screen and screams like something riven from the underworld when at full blast. For some strange reason, I wasn't allowed to take it through customs (imagine my surprise!) on the way to Wikimania, where I am currently at. And yes, I'm temporarily editing from my iPhone - because my computer is a kilometre away. "Only a bad workman blames his tools" is bullshit; if a workman gets new tools he's not used to, chances are he's going to make mistakes however careful he is. On the matter of AGF, maybe we should have an Assume Competence policy? This would mandate that when someone has been editing since 2006, users don't come to their talkpage and patronisingly inform them that "oh! you should sign your posts, silly! tee hee hee!" like a twelve year old girl. Wouldn't that be nice? Ironholds (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that tagging as fast as possible is the be all and end all of working on Wikipedia. Drive-by tqgging is generally the exploit of twelve-year olds, so how are we to guess? While you're at Wkimania, try tanking up on some GF, and don't come back here with your foul language.--Kudpung (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging; this would be tagging articles to bring them to the attention of others because you don't have enough time to fix them yourself? Yes, that's what I do. I fail to see a problem with it. On the subject of good faith and incivility, do you think that categorising taggers as 12 year olds is civil and assuming good faith and competence? And one final question, based on your statement that I think such tagging is the be-all and end-all; have you ever actually looked at my contributions? Here's a hint; look for my 6 featured articles, 13 featured lists, 37 good articles and 167 DYKs, Ironholds (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've looked. It does not give you a right to be aggressive, rude, and uncivil, and starting name calling by accusing me of being 'a twelve year old girl'. I've also gone through your tp archives, and we are definitely not the first to have complained. Do you ever look at what others do before youè throw your weight around? Like I said before, giving you the benefit of the doubt with your millions of Twinkling, your slips twixt thumb and touch screen are probably par for the course. Now as I have also said before, leave it be, enjoy your new iPhone, tank up on some GF, and stay off my tp.--Kudpung (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

..okay, just to check, you read what I wrote? Let me make it clear:

1. I was not saying my contributions give me immunity. You claimed I thought drive-by tagging was the be-all and end all. I was refuting that.
2. I was not saying that you are a twelve year old. You claimed 12 year olds were drive-by taggers and vice versa; If you read what I wrote, you will see I noted that you calling drive-by taggers 12 year olds was incivil.
3. I have made all of 1 contributions from my iPhone.
4. As explained, "twinkling" is not my main or a significant minor focus.

Is that clear enough? Ironholds (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Very clear, especially in the way you take statements completely out of context. You directly suggested I was acting like a 12-year old girl (very civil), while I was reiterating a well known fact that has been discussed often on this encyclopedia: that a lot of indiscriminate tagging is being done by minors. There have even been cases where they have organised tagging competitions among themselves. It's clear enough to anyone reading this thread that I was referring to that and not to you personally. It's eaqually clear to anyone this thread that there are no aggressive tones tone in my posts. Now please give it a rest.--Kudpung (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And the comments about how I thought tagging was the be-all and end-all of editing, that was reiterating a well known fact? Read what I wrote. I never claimed you were a 12 year old. What I said was " do you think that categorising taggers as 12 year olds is civil". Please explain how that could in any way be interpreted as a personal comment about you? Ironholds (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RE:My Questions

While I disagree with your opinion, I can understand that not all editors will agree. However, as I had stated, I do not wish to waste space discussing it on Connormah's RfA. I had used these questions (or variants thereof) several years ago, and no one complained then (in fact I had received several positive comments regarding the questions), so I decided "Hey, why not?" and reused them now. If you truly think they are frivolous, then please, explain to me how-so. I am merely trying to come to a conclusion about a user applying for adminship. --khfan93 02:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

There is of course nothing wrong with wanting to improve an article, but your current use of the article talk page is clearly in direct opposition to Wkipedia policy on several counts, and hinders the use of the page by others. You do not own the article or its talk page, but I do not get involved with edit wars. I strongly suggest that you read the reasons for my edits.--Kudpung (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kupung,

I'm fully aware of wikipedia policies on talk pages. (If you note my user page, I've been around a while) However, there is also the occasional need for Ignoring the rules and had you been a part of the discussion as it developed at Finnhorse, I think you would understand that this is one case. It's a very cluttered work page, but it's a working page about the article (been a little slow lately, but I think Pitke is a student and off for the summer or something). First off, almost all content is a dialogue between myself, an active and experienced editor of horse-related articles on wikipedia, and Pitke, who is Finnish and has a great deal of access to knowledge about that particular horse breed. The discussions there are all related to the improvement of the actual article --I'm sure you really don't want to compare all the diffs in the edit history, but trust me, the discussions were relevant to changes being made to the article. You will note that I kept some of the material from dead discussions in the archive you created. However, I restored the photos because they are being used as something of a bank to draw from as we work on the article. I do admit at the moment it's a bit scrapbook-y and all the thumbnails may need to be cleaned out sooner or later, but as Pitke also does a lot of work in Commons, I'm going to let Pitke decide the fate of the images once the article is pretty much done because that way they will be properly organized somewhere they can be found again.

I guess the bottom line is that I really wish you would have noticed that there were primarily the two of us working on the article and had nicely ASKED us if we could be so kind as to clear up the extra bandwidth we were using on the talk page. It was really a bit rude to just go in there, blank the page and leave a snotty template behind.

Frankly, if you want to do some VERY HELPFUL archiving and talk page cleanup that would be appreciated, please feel absolutely welcome to go over to rodeo and related articles and be my guest. We have people trying to restart two-year-old edit wars on those. An archive would be quite helpful there!  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Contrex

Hi Kudpung! Thanks for your good advice. I will add this template on all the talk pages of the articles I tried to translate. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please respect policy regarding user talk pages

Two weeks ago I asked you politely not to edit my user talk page and explained my reasoning for this request; you have since edited it twice. Where I am able to decipher the meaning of your edits, I do not find them helpful. Please would you read WP:UP#CMT, be sensible and show some respect.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I do appologise for inadvertently ignoring your request, I wasn't thinking. I should have posted it here and sent you a tb. Here it is again - you are welcome to remove it from your talk page and put this 'pointless squabble' finally to bed.

Before criticising others, please do not forget the grave injustices you serve up against other editors. There appears to be a strong consensus that the pattern of your editing might not be conducive to a happy environement here, especially your manner of putting dubious positive spisn on on complaints to make it it appear that you are the injured party. By continuing to interfere, especially by stalking my edits on your watchpage, and looking for every possible opportunity for muck raking, please consider making some worthwhile edits to this encyclopedia, or at least check the background and be absolutely sure of your facts. By awarding such barnstars, the irony is, and you are quite aware of it, that you are clearly the one who is taunting for flames.--Kudpung (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

=--Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Malvern water update

Hi Kudpung. I took a bold step with Malvern water, with the hope of improving overall readability. In doing so, I capitalised on the material you previously added, and tried to do some justice to your effort. I think I succeeded, but see what you think. I elaborated a bit more on the talk page. Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing bold about it - it was exactly the right thing to do. You might not be such a prolific word mill as I am, but when you turn to phraseolgy, you certainly put my prose to shame. Your forté is in fixing refs too, and I'm afraid I've left you one or two small tasks for your system on the Malvern water page again. Horses for courses I guess... --Kudpung (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. I've formatted the reference, and created a lead-in sentence. It's probably fair to say I've had my share of practice in writing over the years in various contexts, including hundreds of complex reviews in a database with limited character space. Hugely challenging at times, with 12 to 16+ hour days at times, and sometimes damn near asleep on my feet (literally). But I may have developed a few generalisable skills from the process, and for me, that's largely what life is about. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Malvern Water with a capital 'W'

Hi Wotnow. Ever since the days before Malvern water was even split off into its own article, when the whole Malvern article (now a GA) was practically denounced as being monarchist propaganda and a blatant advert for the water, I was determined that the commercialised product should join the Wikipedia series of short 'blatant adverts' on bottled spring and mineral waters such as Highland Spring, Selters, Perrier, Vittel (water), Evian, Contrex, Badoit, Apollinaris (water), Celtic (water), etc. Most of these are very short stubs, but I have been able to cobble a starter that obviously contains some elements of the Malvern water page. It's more than a stub, and it's referenced, so I have already posted it to main space without any risk (I hope) of drive-by tagging. I have a lot more photos to add to it that I made during my privately organised visit to the factory, and one or two other Malvern Water things, but it needs more info such as market share at home and abroad, annual increases in sales, and so on, and the infobox completing. I have paraphrased as much as I can to make the article as dissimilar to Malvern water as possible, but I feel that perhaps you could add that literary flair of yours and do a better job. I would also very much appreciate your suggestions as to whether the name I have given the page should be moved to Malvern Water (spring water), or Malvern Water (drinking water) or Malvern Water (bottled water), etc, to differentiate it more clearly from the general phenomenon of Malvern water that has so influenced the lives of people like me and GyroMagician. The strict dictionary definition of beverage is 'any drink other than water'. When all this is done, and Malvern water finally passes its GA, we can then remove the Foof & Drink banner from Malvern water, because it's now on the bottld water article. One way to start would be to check out the links for the other stubs on water that I have listed above. The new article is HERE. Perhaps it should be scrapped completely if it clashes too much with Malvern water. --Kudpung (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Thanks for the compliment. I will do what I can. My ability to contribute may be limited as I reach the limits of my time management, both in the short term, and perhaps more permanently. I'll not have a decent window for Wikipedia for a couple of days. In the meantime, there are a couple of things. Firstly, the name. Of the options, I would consider something at a stable, non-ephemeral, conceptual level, which encapsulates the product. Malvern Water (spring water) could be construed as potentially confusing with Malvern water which defined in its lead as a spring water, which may rule that out. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines Beverage more broadly than the narrow definition above, as "a liquid for drinking", and doesn't rule out water in its definition. However, there is probably no gain in having a title that could potentially get bogged down in a definition war at some point. Malvern Water (drinking water) is a drinking water, but so too is Malvern water.

Now as far as I can tell from my readings in contributing to Malvern water, the manufactured product is by definition packaged in bottles, and has been since first production of any sort, by any manufacturer. I guess the earlier versions circa 1622 were also bottled, but certainly since 1851. I also note that the leads of some of the articles you provide links to describe their products as bottled. So it seems to me that Malvern Water (bottled water), or Malvern Water (bottled spring water) would be useful titles. Especially perhaps the latter, which both encapsulates the product, and differentiates it from Malvern water.

In terms of differentiating the article from Malvern water sufficiently enough, I would probably start by focusing in particular on the manufacturing history. Schweppes has been the dominant manufacturer, so much information found will probably pertain to Schweppes or Coca-Cola. This could invite criticism that the article is but an advert for these companies, depending on how it is written. Such criticism can be pre-empted and side-stepped by focusing first on the history, and elaborating on that, including what can be found on defunct manufacturers. Indeed, there is some imperative to document such information, which gets lost in successive generations. I would also make mention of the more global aspects, such as mentioning that (as I understand it from one of my recent citation contributions) the French were first to capitalise on the existence of a market for bottled water. All of this helps with NOV as well.

I hope this is of some help. It is almost all I can do in the immediate instance. While this exercise itself took a little time, writing on talk pages is as you know, far kinder to one's time management, since in the process of tossing around ideas, there is at least not hidden time (i.e. time over and above how long one might estimate it takes to write a visible piece of text) associated with verification.

One other thing I can probably do in the immediate future - i.e. when I finnish this message - is to create a 'Bibliography' section. As a more experienced Wikipedian than I, with your background of knowledge and experience, what I'm about to say won't be new to you. But bear with me if you would: it's just me getting what's in my head out there as food for thought, partly by way of reflecting on the one example I am most familiar with within Wikipedia. As you doubtless know, in academia, the general advice, and sometimes (but not always) the rule, is to start out by creating a bibliography from which one anticipates sourcing a piece of writing. By doing this, I can at least list some things that looked promising to me as I contributed to Malvern water, and anything else I find between now and logging off.

Regarding other contributions to text, my own tendency would probably be to create short, more-or-less self-contained sentences or paragraphs with citations, which can later be expanded on. This lends itself to sculpting the article as such material accumulates. That is largely how I grew the Captain R. T. Claridge article. If you look at the earliest version, it's just a bunch of sentences and paragraphs with a loose structure. What I did was keep accumulating verifiable information until there was something there for me to look at and ask "okay, what structure does this text lend itself to?" I also created a bibliography early on. At that time I had no idea how much information I'd eventually find on Claridge, nor of his involvement in early Asphalt paving in the UK, or anything else for that matter. But the bibliography was a starting point. Once the article had developed and had a few references and the need for a bibliography became redundant in a one-page internet article - as opposed to the sometimes massive tomes in which the referencing methods we encounter were typically developed (e.g. footnotes throughout text for readers to follow, and a bibliographic list at the end to pull the sources together, and make it possible for the writer to keep track while writing. That sort of thing), and which tends to be forgotten in Wikipedia, if even contemplated - I renamed the section to 'Further reading'. Kind regards Wotnow (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

sourcing problem

Hi Kudpung, re http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cara_Butler&action=historysubmit&diff=373584468&oldid=370512338 are you really sure there was absolutely no mention of the subject in the referenced article, and if so is it possible there is a similar name that could have lead to this merely being a mistake? As its behind a paywall I hope you don't mind doublechecking before we escalate matters, assuming you've still got the article so you can do so without paying a second time. Giving a false reference is a pretty serious accusation, especially where BLPs are concerned, but I don't want to pay to check the article if you still have a copy and can confirm there is no "C Butler" or similar. ϢereSpielChequers 10:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cara Butler

Hi, Are you claiming that the paid-for article doesn't have the information or just the first (and free) part of said article? You might want to try the following link [1]. In general if you have doubts about something like this, the easiest way to confirm the situation without spending money is to search using some short phrase in the short version of the article and the topic itself as I did to create that link. Please let me know if you have any questions about how to do that. Also, please remove the BLPPROD when you get a chance. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also noticed you apparently made a similar mistake in Peter Simko. Using Google translate I find a quote that "Fagernes beat Peter Simko at a technical knockout after 25 seconds" in the source. I'm not a speaker of Norwegian, so there could be a translation problem, but that would seem to support the sentence in question. Hobit (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hobit. I'm not claiming anything except that the page I was linked to did not contain the information, (see: WP:BLPPROD#Background ...biographies created after 18 March 2010 that do not contain at least one source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under this new process.) (bold is mine). and from that point on, I put myself in the shoes of a Wikipeia reader who wants reasonably accurate information about it without having to to dig down through layers of architecture of other web sites and scale the hurdles of paywalls, or to use Google translations. Simko, in my opinion, falls clearly under WP:RSUE - you'll see for example in Brontë that I put translations of the French references into the footnotes - and it was a mmamoth task on that 80-page article. Your link to the paid section indeed shows the two words Cara Butler, (did you pay, and get the full text? - see WereSpielChjequers above) but not to any text concerning Butler in depth, so it niether establishes notability, nor that what the Wikipedia says about the subject is true; thus nor is it then an RS of the strict nature that I believe is required for BLPs. In both cases, as I have learned rightly or wrongly, to understand on Wikipedia, WP:BOP overrides anyway, so why should we pay to check your sources? But I may be wrong, and if I am, I'm to skint to start paying for something to justify my editing when I already devote a lot of free time to it ;) Anyway, I had gone through all the entries on the first page of a Google search and couldn't find anything that passes my notion of RS; if I had, I would most certainly have used it rather than tagging the article - I believe in WP:BEFORE although a lot of taggers don't, and freely admit they don't (see my talk page). I would still nevertheless like to see some other, accessible sources, in English, for both of them. But maybe I'm just interpreting too literally the policy that WereSpielChjequers and I, with many others, helped to develop and establish. Let me know if you think I am, and perhaps we can let WSC arbitrate for us - he's pretty good at that sort of thing.Kudpung (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't paid for this either, so have no strong view as to whether the lady would survive an AFD discussion. However I don't think anyone disputes that that particular newspaper is a reliable source. That leave me with two questions:

1. to Hobit, were you able to verify all the information in the article by using that source? If not I'd suggest a {{refimproveBLP}} tag would be in order.
2. to Kudpung, are you suggesting that we restrict BLP reliable sources to ones that are online and freely available? If so I foresee problems - not least because some big papers here in the UK have just put up paywalls. I do worry that allowing offline and paywalled sites to be used as references creates an interesting loophole for vandals, and I foresee future trouble - but the time to only allow users to cite offline or paywalled sites if they've identified to the office will be after that becomes a problem, not before. However if you want to raise this at the RFC, I would consider that the wording at least one freely accessible online source directly supporting the material would be the change you want. But if I can't get utube, facebook, linkedin and MySpace ruled out I don't fancy your chances of ruling out The Times et al. ϢereSpielChequers 13:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@WSC: It only confirms she was a dancer for the Chieftains. "The Chieftains not only carried their own Irish dancers, Cara Butler and Donny...". I've not paid for the link, but it confirmed the most relevant fact of the bio, so it seems like a reasonable source. [2] is a much better source. Not sure why I didn't find it last time. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, that the article doesn't verify all information isn't required for a BLPPROD removal (as you know). Could you explain what you were getting at? Hobit (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy that one reliable source directly supporting some fact about the subject is sufficient to decline a BLPprod. I think it logical that if you don't fully reference the BLP you indicate that with a {{refimproveBLP}} tag, I appreciate that some loathe all tags, but they are still replacing a big nasty template with a small and fairly innocuous one. ϢereSpielChequers 21:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I don't think claiming a link lacks information when it actually has it in a foreign language is a good idea. Perhaps just noting the language issue (or adding the English translation) would be better? Hobit (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Hmm... WSC, good points about the paywalls. My point was that as we cant verify such articles, there is no proof that what is claimed, is in them. I suspect that there could be cases where all that is mentioned is the name of the subject and no further treatment that lends notability and/or verifiability of claims in Wikipedia articles.I wonder how many of us are going to pay to access those web pages, particularly if after payiing, they don't directly serve our purpose. At least when we use print sources we can cite an ISBN, a pubisher, and the all imporant page numbers; we can also trot along to the public or university library and see the text for ourselves (well you an - I'm in Thailand). A we know, many web based sourcesa re shaky at the best of times, take all the polemic for instance over the IMDB.
For Hobit, I'll gladly trade the Butler sticky prod for a BLP refimprioe. Can we use this discussion as a consensus to do that?--Kudpung (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm (really) off to work now but I'll also try to add that other source in the next day or so which should take care of the refimprove too. :-) Hobit (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hobit: RE translations - i'm glad you agree, which is exactly what I inferred. and why I gave the example of my work in Brontë--Kudpung (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that verification through paywalls or to offline sources and even to sources in a different language are all somewhat problematic, in that far fewer will check such sources than will check a cite they can click. All our talk about reliable sources is predicated on the assumption that we trust our own editors, though they might be citing untrustworthy sources. Hard to check but reliable sites raise the issue of trustworthy and untrustworthy editors. I think we could reduce risks by introducing trusted editor features, such that sections of text or references were highlighted in different colours according to how "trusted" their author was, and we could boost that either by allowing editors to mark a citation as verified, or by allowing editors to identify to the office. That way if a new editor appeared and started citing a bunch of offline sources, someone who had good library access could just check out a few of their references and either mark them as reliable or, we'd know we had a problem. ϢereSpielChequers 21:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Beijing Home Delivery

This organization meets the criteria for being recognized on Wikipedia. It has demonstrated a notable effect on culture in Beijing. It is the leading home delivery company in Beijing, and is expanding at a rate of 10% per month, with 120,000 revenue per month. It serves over 1,000 customers in Beijing and is also having a notable effect on culture and economics in Beijing. Also check the articles written about Beijing Home Delivery. If this is not worthy of a wikipedia page, why not? And at what point would this be worthy of one? (Richcoward (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richcoward (talk • contribs)

I carefully reviewed all your edits before engaging in any line of action. In my opinion, not only is the eventual lack of notability of your company (1,000 customers for a home delivery service in a city of 22 million) a possible reason for deletion, but also the fact that the articles you have created both about yourself and your company might be in conflict with at least two further Wikipedia policies: promoting yourself (WP:COI), and promoting your company (WP:ADVERT). An administrator (WP:SYSOP) will decide if these articles meet the criteria - I just point out that there might be reasons to give your creations closer review. If you strongly disagree with the reasons for tagging, you can follow Wikipedia advice on the tag itself - leaving unsigned messages on my talk page is probably not the best place to suggest that your articles should be kept. Hope this information helped. --Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is not me or my company, I don't know where you got that from? It actually has the most customers in Beijing, so I am sure it is worthy to be noted. Also please tell me where I should post these comments? And how I can sign them? (Richcoward (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

Well, it looks as if the powers that be did not think the company was important enough. Most discussion about articles oes on article talk pages. You can sign you name by inserting four tildes like this --~~~~. You can do it automatically either by clicking the signature button at the top of the edit window, or by clicking the four tildes in the Wiki markup options just below the window.Kudpung (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Swedish Soldier Ranks

I am the author of almost all the Swedish and Finnish rank articles on wiki. Since each soldier rank from menig to sergeant are very similar and contains too little information for justifying having one separate articles for each; I am merging them into one for convenience. When this is done, those tiny individual articles should be removed. Note I am the one who originally created those articles. Redgards --Malin Lindquist (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fully understand that. You are doing a great job, and I'm just doing some minor typos and spelling corrections for you. Let me know when you have got round to doing your merges, and I will be pleased to check it again for you.--Kudpung (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you understand my point. I added a comment to the article Soldier ranks of Sweden to clarify what is going on. --Malin Lindquist (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and in the meantime I've saved your article from being deleted. Don't hesitate to ask if you want any further help.--Kudpung (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Leigh and Bransford

 Done Leigh_and_Bransford now has a populated infobox. It needs checking. I reckon Leigh with Bransford] is now a ward consisting of at least two civil parishes. I cannot find an area so the population density is not filled in in the infobox - I hope this helps --Senra (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Re your answer on my page. I am not an ace like Jeni. I do my infoboxes by hand. Throw them my way and I will fix as many as I can --Senra (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hanley, Worcestershire but I guess you had better give it a quick once over --Senra (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. If you are really keen, you'll find some pages in the WP:WORCS that list all our stubs and things to do. I micromanage the project but I haven't really had much tie lately to get everything up to date recently. --Kudpung (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

oops - just found Hanley Child which seems to clash with the Hanley, Worcestershire I just created. Hanley Child (and a different Hanley Childe nearby) do appear to be different locations than Hanley, but as I am not sure, and I do not mean to create work, I will step away. Just let me know which places need infoboxes and I will create them easily --Senra (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No harm done ! If I remember rightly, the parish of Hanley covers the two villages of Hanley Swan and Hanley Castle with a few hamlets in between, but I don't think there is actually a place called Hanley in Worcestershire. However, there are quite a few Hanleys in the UK, so maybe we should also be considering looking at any dab or redirect pages, and dab hatnotes.--Kudpung (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just checked ONS. Hanley CP (Parish) (pop 288) is distinct from Hanley Castle CP (Parish) (pop 1260), but I will pull out now as I do not want to cause damage (I think I got it right, but as I do not know the area I really am not sure). I added parameters to three more (existing) infoboxes by the way (which would be nice if you checked);

• Hanley Swan (part of the parish of Hanley Castle - untouched by me),

  Himbleton, and

  Hollybush, Worcestershire --Senra (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Hanley CP contains the villages of Hanley and Hanley Child, they are over near Worcester city and that's why I didn't know them. Hanley Swan and Hanley Castle are two adjacent villages near the Malvern end of the county. I went to boarding school in the village of Hanley Castle; see Hanley Castle High School, if you're interested. It's difficult to keep up with what happens in the sprawling county district of Malvern because the boundaries have had some major changes over the years, what with Herefordshire & Worcestershire being merged, then demerged again barely 20 years later.--Kudpung (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Stub Sorting of Panania North Public School. (You can help!)

Hello Kudpung. Thank you for tagging an article as a stub. I noticed that you used the {{stub}} template. In the future, it would be greatly appreciated if you could sort the article to a subcategory by using one of these templates instead. For example, you can use {{US-novelist-1960s-stub}} for an American novelist born in the 1960s. Of course, if you can't find a proper category, you can always use the {{stub}} tag and someone else will sort it for you, or you can propose a new stub template or category here. Thanks!

^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 14:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Template is not necessarily for beginners, it's just a friendly reminder for all of us (everyone gets these– I did note your 10000+ edits). We're just trying to keep Category:stubs empty. I agree that it can get complicated, and there's certainly no shame in leaving it to us sorters. Again, no intention of offending your status here, you clearly have more then me. I'm just trying to make sure that everyone knows about the issue. (The reason, by the way, is so that people can find stubs to work on in specific areas.) Again, didn't mean to appear mad. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 16:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

MESSAGE FROM ANIRUDH EMANI

i never removed the CSD banner from Liam The Leprechaun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikingos (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did. Here's the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liam_The_Leprechaun&diff=prev&oldid=374279278 . You were also warned by another editor about the same thing concerning "Dragonadopters" just 15 days ago. Nobody wants to discourage you from creating articles but perhaps you should read some of the guidelines first. Please sign your posts on talk pages, and remember to make edit summaries when you add things or change things on articles. --Kudpung (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Liam The Leprechaun

Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Liam The Leprechaun, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a real person. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 05:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion objection: Prince Poppycock

Hello Kudpung. I'm writing here to let you know that I'm objecting to the speedy deletion of Prince Poppycock as I don't think 6 minutes is long enough to let a page develop before nominating it for speedy deletion. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and I am trying to create a page without writing it all myself. If the page does not develop a group of editors to support it then at that point I think deletion would be appropriate but a quick check of Google will show that this is at least arguably notable and hope you will give the page an opportunity to grow. Thanks - Acq3 (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply from Anirudh Emani

Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikingos (talk • contribs) 09:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RP - Late reply

RP - Late reply Hello Kupdung. The following message pertains to the paragraph you submitted on 25 June 2010 concerning our earlier discussion on RP. This directly continues from that statement but in honouring your request not to modify old talk pages (and I see that you have made nearly 2,000 edits since then), I bring this discussion forward to this section. Yes it will cause a minor problem of continuity but it's not critcal; all is there for the world to see. So, to refresh, the edit to which I refer is this. Originally, I was only making a remark (on the RP talk page) discrediting references to certain types of speech as "posh", I was not initially disputing what is and what is not RP. You made one interesting remark, that any "non-regional pronunciation" is a form of RP. I ask, just how varied and how many categories of any form of language can sit side by side and all be classed as RP, even by one who has admitted he considers it all subjective. Facts: even the finest forms of any language have their roots somewhere in a region. It is necessary that a nation must first split and migrate and develop new ways of speaking before one lucky region is declared lottary winner and his zone will dictate to outsiders how the language should be (eg. the dialect of Tuscany for all classsing themseves as Italian, except if Romance-speaking persons within Italy have a more regionalist approach leading to ideas of outright separation, "I am Piedmontese, or Sicilian", where it is another matter). RP did originate as a regional form; I believe it was London but some have disupted that. You then built up to this remark: "unaffected and clearly pronounced language of most of today's reasonably educated school kids." And what accent would that be Kudpung? I contend that there is no unaffected pronuciation among the young, not just among the "reasonable" but the "unreasonable" too, I speak of those with qualifications that fill shelves. In the past couple of weeks, there was a report from a linguist in The Sun: he confirmed that there was a certain levelling of register amid natural changes that take place, and he even pointed out (in support of your view) that it is getting harder and harder to distinguish now whether a person is from Dorest or East Anglia - incorporating the entire region of S.E England). However, we both know this is not all of England, and British English and RP zones extend farther; he also found that in Liverpool, the accent is becoming stronger - the opposite effect. So which accent is this you refer to? I know that young educated people from Southampton and Southend now sound similar to each other, but this accent most definitely does not include 20-something academics born in Leeds and living in Middlebrough. His northern "oo" sounds may have "standardised" so the vowel of "some" does no sound as it does in "book", but apart from one or two instances such as these, his sounding like the south-easterners is a sure to be light years away. Now for someone to have accepted the notion of "posh", to have previously described himself as speaking that way; to have admitted that it is not a permanewnt register (in that a northern accent comes into place when talking to some folk), I am amazed how good your knowledge is on RP. Most people I have met who match that description have never heard of RP, they simply think of the term "Queen's English" and even then, they often think that the language is governed by prescriptive measures that deem usage "correct or incorrect" and worse still, that the Queen has some kind of ownership of the tongue; it is true, people do believe this. I am curious to know whether I would personally detect certain features that you do not "hear", is your "posh" voice really something that masks any hint of your northern background? I'd be surprised. I have extremely sensitive ears Kupdung, I can hear the Welshman or the Liverpudlian in a great many people; you see, there is more to talking "differently" than plain old "vowel adjustment". How do I know this? I was born and raised in Wiltshire to parents from the Balkans (Yugoslavia). I didn't speak in an "ooh arh" accent as a child, I had a strong foreign accent in my early English speaking days (it was my second language), with years, it evolved into what it is today. I admit that I am inspired by those fine RP forms but how it actually sounds is something I cannot judge, it is down to the other listener. However, Wiltshire English or RP, there is a radical shift required if I wish to start speaking in Croatian. A phrase book will tell you that Croatian "a" is like English "hat", and "o" as in "hot". Just follow that guide by the letter and see if the folk in Split or Dubrovnik don't detect that you are an outsider. There is no English equivalent to the true ways the vowels are pronounced (nor some of the consonants). I can pass undetected yes, but I know that to do so, it requires a completely separate starting position and posture. You see, accent is also affected by intonation and other breathing techniques, especially aspiration (among other things), and if you try to ignore these factors and effect an RP speechform directly from a natural West Midlands register, well, it may satisfy you Kudpung, but not me, and I can play you recordings and point out radical differences that you'll have missed. This neatly takes me to the next section: the newsreaders you mentioned. None of them speak RP, they do not even speak the same as each other, three or four will pronounce something one way, the rest, another; so there is no question of individual behaviour either. I don't accuse the BBC of "introducing regional speech to tone down posh speech", for one, I don't accept "posh" speech, only RP (whatever it may be), and for another, there are BBC persons who speak in broad regional accents. Sports, weather and business are parts of the news and you hear people in Socttish, Irish, etc. accents there. Reporters have included Hillary Anderson (no idea what nationality she is but it is British), Kylie Morris (Australian I think, she had S.E Asia some years back but I don't know now) and others. And why not? BBC World Service English has foreigners as presenters themselves. I haven't got a problem with it Kupdung, I'm not a snob! "Dees iz deh BBC vorld serv-ees." Likewise, the gang on your list are not common, no, but again, I can hear the local in all of them. I can clearly hear that Trevor McDonald is black, and as for Mushal Hussein? You think hers is non-regional? She doesn't sound like she's from Northampton but she does as if she is from the south-east; she doesn't sound like she is on a London council estate but she doesn't resemble those who naturally use RP either; I cannot call it something "in between", it is nothing more than a diluted regional accent with some of the edges trimmed. However, for Mishal it does not end there. Unlike in my case, you can clearly detect that she was not raised by English speaking parents, and that she must have spent a great deal of time speaking in English with them. You see, it is often clear that a certain person has non-English speaking parents by their own pronunciation and emphasis on certain things. This happens when your parents choose to speak in English to you, and you oblige. I was fortunate that we used Macedonian/Serbo-Croat at home and to this day, with my country folk, I use the native language, only using English if addressing a British-born/raised individual who doesn't speak the native language/s effectively (and where he/she chooses). Mishal's speech (like that Reeta Chakribati) is marked by excessive hyper-pronunciation on several utterances/words per presentation. It stems from the irritation when hearing their parents speak to them in their weaker accents, a need emerges to "strengthen" it. I can hear it, and I have surprised people when speaking to them on the phone before knowing their names when I have accurately confirmed they were raised by non-native English speakers and that they spoke English with them. Now it is not that the BBC had removed "RP" as a prerequisite but ths is the way of the world itself. It runs its natural course, end of story. Now with no more target accent for the younger and oncoming generations (beyond, "run" not "roon" at the moment), the BBC is only doing what ITN has also done; that too (despite ITV's original reputation for low-mentality viewers and BBC2 for the middle-classes - values now long diminished) originally employed speakers of RP to present news and continuity. Attitudes have changed Kupdung, the world has changed, and continues to do so. Now here is one observation by me as to why there is no more RP, and what is actually replacing it. Do you remember the late 70s British ITV comedy George and Mildred? Their neighbours were the Fourmile family. The pompous Mr.Fourmile - concerned about his son's H-dropping, grammar, and spelling - was an estate agent. The series ran 1976-79. I know that you know that where language has had rules, its biggest offenders have been its so-called "police", this is what has led to hyper-corrections such as "for you and I". Not what you'd expect from the same kind of person who'd say "me and my mates went down the match on Saturday, got plastered by 11". Mr.Fourmile was indeed an "offender" at times, and it is unlikely that this was intentional as it would have "exposed him" within the storyline. It was clearly ignorance on the part of the writers and the same with all involved in production, so it travelled from the pen to the screens bypassing dozens of people in the process. Joke aside, it depicts a time when an estate agent will have been concerned about the state of the language, a time when you had middle-class pubs and working-class bars, not wine bars where can't work cuz I'm depressed and living on benefits toerags drink themselves stupid as they would in their local tavern (also serving low quality expensive "meals" to enhance its image). All right, I know life is not quite quite that two-dimensional. Times were nevertheless different and many people in many place cared about language and as such, RP, for all its changes, maintained common features and was continuous from older forms. I contend that this continuity has severed, and that if what we now have is a "replacement" for what RP was, it is unrelated to older forms. What estate agent will now care about grammar and syntax? Where will you find white-collar workers that know their "who" from their "whom"? You may get the occasional maverick but it is no longer the preserve of the community in the specific field. The only people left who have knowledge of language are those in the actual profession; no longer will we find bank managers fussing over "-ize", opting for "-ise"; if he does, he's on his own and his colleagues and subordinates will mock him. In the 80s, you had "yuppies", young bullshitters with no talent but used language to impress elders and then in short periods of time made fortunes for themselves before anyone could spot them and oust them, by which time, it was too late. We don't speak of yuppies today, but we'd be lying if we said they left no legacy. What is everything around us? Sales, sales, sales. Shoddy workmanship, covered with gloss, sold for as much money as possible, that'll do me nicely, thank you very much sir; insurance companies whose representatives smile when taking the money off you but are reluctant to give a penny back on the day of the race; pay-per-view television, footballers who still only play 90 minutes but earn more money in a week than I do in ten years; premium rate telephone lines, TV/radio quiz shows - no, not Radio 4 Brain of Britain where questions are asked and we entertain ourselves in playing along and seeing who wins, etc., but "guess the impossible number and win £500", short-lived projects that come and go, are devised by a few, made to make profits for so those same few, do not give the candidate a fair chance to even play "sorry, your call was not successful, anyhow, you've been charged £1 ...play again by all means". Who finds them entertaining is my question. Bank offers/deals, betting shops, gold-for-cash merchants and cheque-converters (no cheque too large) - no, not for me either when 7% goes in my pocket; all in your face with their advertising techniques using young people with smutty smiles on their faces or if on TV/radio, screaming like they've won a fortune, all designed to lure suckers while they know they are out to deceive. SCAM MONGERS Kupdung, they are the people of today. There is no place for a real-life Mr.Fourmile in today's cut and thrust "property buying industry", his generation's concern for language reveal a sensitive side. To be a high flyer today, you can't have morals, they impede your progress and will hamper your hopes of promotion. Worse still, if your sly manager gets wind that you've breeched discretion by saying the wrong thing to the would-be client (ie. the truth), you could be out the door and in turn, "blacklisted" from ever again being deployed in that field. "You don't want him at Harrison's, only last week he worked for Harrison's and Harrison's and I heard someone from Harrison's, Harrison's and Harrison's saying how he pointed to a crack on the kitchen ceiling instead of standing where it couldn't be seen". No good for one, no good for the other! Now with all this Kupdung, how can people care about RP!!?? Have you really not registered yet the habits of the "young educated" and the "BBC elite"? The ten-figure billion and thirteen-digit trillion? That still confuses people when they hear it spoken asuimg the other. Voiced Ts in words such as "better" (bedder)? H-dropping is one thing because it is a natural cause, but these features are Americanisms; and they are not universally accepted, I know that I have a lot of support from people young and old in rejecting these details are RP. And what about the pronunciation of "comparable"? For over 300 years, it was "komp-rubble", and still is by many, but some that don't know will say "komp- aaaa -rubble"; nothing alerting them will not change but they still make it onto BBC before this can happen. "Room" rhyiming with "loom" and not the vowel of "book"? Waistcoat and forehead all as separate words and not "weskit" and "forrid"? I know what you're thinking "ah, these are just preferences, one says this, the other says that, it doesn't relfect a region". But how much can a refined accent stand before it is not itself any more? If they had themselves the right posture in the first place, they wouldn't need to pronounce things as such because they'd find there is no other way of saying certain things; RP is natural, it falls into place when he hit the right note first time. If you don't, it is clear that you don't, and you end up speaking no different to the sleazy radio advert opportunists who grate on the ear with their verbal small print - you don't pay any anttention to the ad itself but you can't help but notice the annoying "t-voicing" moron speaking faster and faster as he tells you of what is "comp-aaaa-rable" before covering his benefactor's backsides with all the "exclusions" and "offer ends this date" cobblers and the final words that can make me spray him with bullets from a kalashnikov, "terms and conditions apply". Say it like it is - "it is all a scam". But I'll round off by giving you my best example to date. This wasn't the BBC Breakfast but its gay-lover and pretend-rival GMTV. I could not believe my ears when I heard "respiratory" pronounced, wait for it - "res - pi - RATE - o - ree". The word was always "res-pra-tree". I know the readers may have through "ah, respitator, just add y", but you can't even blame the Americans here! Even the Yanks say "res-pra ..." but then spoil it with "...tory". Shocking eh. Sorry this has been long-winded but I had to say everything. I divided everything into paragraphs for easier reading. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) 14:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin Tools Wiki

Hi. Someone claiming to be you has a pending question here. We would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 02:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's me. See here. --Kudpung (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and congrats! I have promoted you there. Please see your user talk page there.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow.

Hi Kudpung,

I just wanted to say that I'm amazed and astonished by the introductory paragraph on your user page. So cool. I wish I could hear of your stories of traveling Europe and learning linguistics. It fascinates me because I was borne in Western Germany days after the actual falling of the Berlin Wall. My parents are American, of course; Father in military but I wasn't borne on a military base. My father has traced our family roots to Germany, in a region where we once lived shortly. So, of course I'm fascinated by the place I came into the world where I don't have firsthand memories. I love linguistics because I can confuse people but also communicate to different groups of people. I try to teach myself German and I took Spanish in high school and shortly will take it again in college. I also share a strong passion for music; except on my piano. I would say more but it just sounds a little strange sharing all this on Wikipedia, of all places. Ah. So neat to come across your page. Tamer_of_Hope talk 03:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the compliment - although the user page isn't really so special, I've had quite a lot of practice at writing stuff! Interesting about Berlin - I had just left six months before the wall came down to go and work in France. I've been using Macs since about 1988, got quite a collection of obsolete machines now. Good luck with your editing on Wikipedia; I don't envy your work on NPP, whatever you do with the best of intentions, it can attract a lot of flak. Take care, see you around.--Kudpung (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Circar Public School A7 speedy tag.

A7 does not apply to schools. RN 07:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Np, FWIW the content is very questionable at best RN 08:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very dodgy. Could be A1, I suppose. It can't be left like that.--Kudpung (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Insanely dodgy.... I proded it. RN 08:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Allied Military operations of the Vietnam War (1967)

Its a reorganisation of the original huge list that was organised alphabetically, I haven't change the references at all. Will look at cleaning up the references in due course. Mztourist (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, That's OK, it's just that you were listed as the original page creator. It's gong to be a big task doing 100 refs , but you would have the opportunity of checking that all the links are still live, and providing the correct WP:MOS format complete with new retrieval dates. You might be able to get some help from the members of the parent project. I've put the project banners on the article talk page so you'll have a direct link to them now.--Kudpung (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I vreated 1967, but I didn't create the original list that it came from. I'll correct the bare urls that I put in the original list, but won't do so for those that others have added as they're generally references to web pages only rather than documents or books. Mztourist (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of Speedy nom

I removed my initial Speedy deletion nomination on Anya Reiss after finding the subject satisfies WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in major newspapers. The article needs a lot of work, including notability assertion, but restoring the Speedy nom was probably a little harsh. If you don't mind, I'm going to remove the nomination again as outlined in the lede for WP:CSD. Cheers! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a misunderstanding. I nominated the article for Speedy, then changed my mind as the subject clearly is notable. So it was me who removed the template. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Entirely your prerogative :) You tagged it, you can of course detag it if you like. I was just confused by the ES. I'll see how the page develops over the next day or two.--Kudpung (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought so! :) It was reverted again by another editor after you as well... Newcomer well and truly bitten. I'm going to help out a little on the article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now--Kudpung (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added an edit accidentally while the inuse tag is there. Feel free to overwrite. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

CMLL Super Viernes (August 2010)

Super Viernes is CMLL's traditional Friday Night show that they have held every week since the 1930s, only cancelled because of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake and the 2009 Swine Flu epedemic. So it's not speculation to say that the show will happen in August as well, especially since CMLL has announced a tournament that runs during Super Viernes for three weeks, starting July 30 and will thus go into August. Just to explain why I removed the prod.  MPJ -DK  11:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rationale went into the edit summary, also a prod 10 minutes after it's created? Talk about some gun jumping there and not giving it time to develop at all.  MPJ -DK  11:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't create a drama, and I won't stick to my guns, I guess I'd be pretty stupid to pick a fight with the wrestlers;) but I tend to interpret WP:CRYSTAL rather to the langauge of the policy. However, thanks for letting me know. BTW, I always use my user space for my creations and I've never had a CSD yet...--Kudpung (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Careful!

Note that here, you used {{curly braces}} instead of [[square brackets]], and as a result the article now includes the guidelines themselves rather than just a link to them. DS (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had inadvertently used the wrong KBL. An innocent error for 50 years of special international keyboard use. But perhaps if you had fixed it for me it would have been quicker than leaving the message here - I might have gone on holiday for three days! (Wales doesn't pay me enough to work 24/7 ;) Thanks for pointing it out anyway.--Kudpung (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Old Salopians

Hello, Following your request a while back, Ive finally done some work on the List of Old Salopians page. There is still a long way to go and Ive called out to the Old Salopians to help! See also the articles talk page... --Abacchus1974 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, it's looking really good. I didn't realise there were so many notable Old Salopians. You're right though, it's time to get them to do something or the page about them. Malvern is different, you and I both have very strong connections to the subject matter.

Probable most are notable - and from the school - but it appears that Charles John Ffoulkes, who you removed from the list, may never have attended the school. According to Royal Armouries, he attended Dragons School and Radley School in Shrewsbury... --Abacchus1974 (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there appears to be some confusion about Ffoulkes. The armouries website gets it wrong too - Dragons and Radley are both in Oxfordshire. My maixm about Wikipedia: If in doubt, leave it out. --Kudpung (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Louis Taylor

Well the myspace reference is to an interview that Louis Taylor had with this guy on myspace. The chicagosmma.com is a very good reference though. I feel that both references are good and needed. Louis Taylor is now making his mark on MMA when he faces Joe Riggs on August 13th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcons8455 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point is that social networking sites are just the very ones that aren't allowed as being WP:RS I'm afraid. People have to be very famous and prominent to be in an encyclopedia. Local heroes don't make it, a six-times world champ might just scrape through! Do check out the guidelines.--Kudpung (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Gameplanet (New Zealand)

Kudpung, I have replied on my talk page. I suggest you also read Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#When_not_to_use_rollback, you may lose it if you continue reverting the addition of references, like you did here[3][4]. XLerate (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my single, innocent, slip in the 100s of uses of rollback, cleaning up the offending article, and demonstrating that this is a small, but successful company. I've saved 100s more articles than send them for CSD, and cured the Wikipedia of thousands more pieces of vandalism. If the article had been correctly referenced from the start , with proper infobox material and inline refs to other than their own website, instead of being a piece of blatant promotion for two years, this would never have happened. Cheers.--Kudpung (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, accidents can happen. I agree with you the article could do with better references. XLerate (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Bronte

Hello again Kudpung, I hope you don't mind me editing, I know Haworth well and a tiny bit about the Brontes. I can understand your translation was literal, it must be really hard. I've just been trimming it round the edges but I will try hard not to alter the meaning. I don't think magazines were published daily, maybe weekly, if I find what they were I'll try to check. Hope you like the new pic.

Gosh! Of course I don't mind you editing. All I did was translate the mammoth article - from partly ambiguous, confusing, and oft repetitive French. --Kudpung (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:EAR question

Thanks for the response... I still had a lingering question, as my question was more broader than WP:RU. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Articles that continually need to be updated Thanks. SauliH (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RU is one of those projects that has dozens of pages that need constantly updating, so I guess what they do there will apply to most other similar pages. WP:WPF is another such project with literally thousands of pages that need constantly updating. --Kudpung (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you expanding the MSMC page right now?

Are you entering details and expanding the page right now? I would like to know since it may lead to clash when I make any edit. So please let me know about it.Bcs09 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I have made a couple of minor clean ups for you, but firearms are not my area of expertise.--Kudpung (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

o.k Thanks.Bcs09 (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Naíscoil an tSeanchaí

Hi Kudpung!

I declined the speedy deletion of Naíscoil an tSeanchaí.I don't think there's consensus to speedy nursery schools under A7. Feel free to start a discussion on WT:CSD. Regards, decltype (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Decltype. Hmm.. you've made me unsure on this, and I fully respect your caution. However, this is a nursery school school with 45 kids run by a small group of parents, and only in operation for 6 years, and their primary school opend in 2009. I know from my reguar work on WP:SCHOOLS that only schools from secondary education up are de facto notable, which cuts out all primary schools, unless of course they really have become famous for something very special such as being 1,000 years old or having won a major national or international award, etc. The only mention I was able to find for this school was its mandatory listiing on the Irish Department of Education site.
I will watch the page and see what happens with the PROD.

--Kudpung (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I haven't done much schoolwork (pun intended), but I'm aware that primary schools are not generally considered notable. However, the wording of A7 specifically excludes schools (without qualification). Thus, I feel PROD is the ideal way of dealing with such articles - the deletion is probably uncontroversial, but does not fall under speedy deletion. However, I guess one possible argument for it to fall under A7 would be that a nursery school is not really a school - thus my invitation to discuss it at WT:CSD. I have to admit I am not 100% sure what a British "nursery school" really is. The interwiki links suggests that a nursery school is the same as the Swedish sv:Förskola - roughly equivalent to the German de:Vorschule, however, the de interwiki is de:Kindergarten, which interwikilinks to no:Barnehage, which corresponds to the English kindergarten. I'm a bit confused :) decltype (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed confusing. In Germany we call it Kindergarten, Vorschule, Kinderhort, or Kindertagestätte, while in France we say maternelle, garderie, or crèche, and in the UK we say all sorts of weird things, but as a nursery is for 6 months to abut 2 or 3 years, we would never call it a school. Somehow we need to get a ruling on possible CSD if a new article really is obviously lacking in notability - I had one yesterday written by a six-year-old about his kindergarten! I'll bring the points up at the WP:SCHOOL project first and see what the others think. --Kudpung (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Grady

Hi, you moved Grady to Grady (disambiguation) with the reason "large dab page". Is this some rule I don't know about (we include (disambiguation) in the title if it's a large page??) I thought that if there was no article at the plain title (i.e. no primary topic) then the dab page should have that title with no (disambiguation) added.--Kotniski (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC) t

I based this move on what I remember of policy and regular precedent. If you feel strongly about it, check out WP:DAB, and if you think I was wrong feel free to move it back - it's not a big issue.--Kudpung (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:DABNAME, it looks like it should be moved back. I'll try to do that.--Kotniski (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Random Domains

I collapsed the warnings (inc yours) on User talk:Random Domains.

Of course, the user has 'seen' them, so it has no bearing on their effect, does not preclude a block if they carry on. I'm just trying to get them on track.

I'm sure you'll understand from my message on their talk; I just wanted to let you know, as a courtesy.

I'll try to help them, if at all possible.

Hope you're not annoyed.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

/HeyMid (contributions) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnaby Lenon

Hi, thanks for the post on my talk page about Lenon, sorry if you felt the edit summary was incorrect, I thought that I was describing my edit by explaining why I removed the PROD. You comments were helpful and taken in the way that they were meant. Thanks again. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

I thought you were an experienced editor. File:Upton bridge.jpg should have been uploaded to the Commons, preferably using geograph_org2commons and should have been uploaded at the original size. Similarly, with your own images will you please get into the habit of uploading them to the Commons. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a very good reason for that:it is very rare that I can get qnything to upload to Commons. For some unexplained reason, the upload page software nearly always hangs before the process is complete. So it's either upload to Wikipedia, or have no images in the articles (which generally are cleanups after someone else's mess), or hoping that some kind person will do it for me.--Kudpung (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

157 Group

You seem to have stopped writing this mid-sentence! PamD (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it got left in after dragging some sentences around. Thanks for doing the clean for me, it's nice to know that there are at least some people who jump in with help rather than just make snarky comments. I'm actually a very big cleanerupper of other editors' messes myself, and I'm busy having a purge at some vocational school pages at the moment, but 157 was on my list to proof and copyedit later this evening. Thanks again. --Kudpung (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your ref 4 doesn't seem to support the policy described - mangled cites? PamD (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mangled cites or mangled sites ;) It has to be around somewhere, I could't possibly have made it up! I'll look into it later. Thanks again.--Kudpung (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Power Snooker

Hi, sorry I didn't see your invite to add my tu'ppence worth. FWIW, I would have said "keep". All the best, bigpad (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Malvern Water

Hi Kudpung. It's possible the reviewer has forgotten the GA, but I think unlikely. He's given us evidence of keeping an eye on our progress, including the talk page, and offering encouraging remarks. I think he's just given us what seems a good period of time to work through his comments, and the article, make what we could of it, and step back to take stock of it. Probably has made a mental note to himself to give us until the end of July. I think he'll be as fair as he thinks he can, and my own preference is to not to rush him. Regards Wotnow (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)