User talk:Kudpung/Archive Apr 2011

RfA Taskforce

It seems we have >20 members now. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. And the last attempt 14 months ago had nearly 200 (and barely a familiar name among them) - which of course is already too many to get any work sensibly done, and that's another reason why nothing got done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Right -- so, how many more do you think we need? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really know. I've asked WSC for some guidance. What we don't want is for the task force to become another social gathering where all the people only yak, and do nothing except be rude to each other. They don't have to agree with the suggestions that have already been made, but we don't want people who just sit there and say 'I don't like it' - that's another reason why previous attempts failed. But to fast track this project, it needs to kept on track. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW: You realise there have been over 2,000 contributors to WT:RfA? Another interesting thing is that the drama seekers there are often those that cause it on RfA too. I'm going to be off line for a lot of the time over the next few days (travelling) but I'll be checking in at least once a day. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Uk Schools

When you get back join the WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom as I have set it up just starting to do the ground work. Mark999 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for voting by the community

I would like to invite you to give your opinion here. Thanks and cheers. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 00:38, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cort and Fatboy Show

Hi Kudpung. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cort and Fatboy Show, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No Copyright InfringementLady Lewis Girls High School

The website under reference here is a Govt website belonging to the Govt of Odisha. The info provided here is not restricted or copyrighted. This info is for public consumption. Secondly if you visit the link provided and see on the top you will find "LOKA SOOCHANA" mentioned, it means that for the information of masses. Hence anything for the information of masses by Govt agency can't be a copyright infringement. Thirdly this article at its present shape may/may not confirm to the instructions for creating school articles but definitely its not a candidate of deletion under the copyright infringement category. So the article should not be deleted.--[[++@adikka 07:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

BTw: Your signature link is not working, please see Wikipedia:Signatures for instructions how to correct this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that .gov websites are not owned by any personnel but Govt organisations. So no question of that info being of any kind of copyrighted material. When the Govt itself has decided to make it public and published it in a PUBLIC DOMAIN. BTW the rule G12 says that "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain....". Hence always remember .gov is only for Govt use nobody's personal domain. You should have gone into detail and asserted yourself that the links are not in Public Domain, before putting up the notice. --[[++@adikka 09:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC) --[[++@adikka (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please refer again to the information on your talk page. Your claim to non-infringement of copyright should be placed on the article's talk page for the attention of the deleting administrator. Your articles about schools are extremely incomplete and they don't even provide information about which country they are located in. Please consider writing correct and complete articles to avoid them being deleted under copyright or other valid criteria. Thank you.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The page in question clearly has a copyright notice ("Copyrights © Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Orissa"), and there is no indication that the page is legally in the public domain or available under an acceptable licence. Just being on the internet is not sufficient to qualify as PD, and the policy is to err on the side of caution in any case where copyright status is not completely clear. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 19:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC).

notability etc on Downs Preparatory School

Hi, You placed a notability banner etc on Downs Preparatory School. I've added a bit to the article & tried to start a discussion on the talk page - could you contribute to the discussion. If you still feel it fails notability could you propose it at AfD?— Rod ^talk 19:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message on the article talk page where matters such as these are best discussed. There is little to be gained by sending the article to AfD where it will use valuable editor and admin resources, and risk getting the wrong consensus and be deleted - at the very worst, non notable school articles usually get merged to the article about the school district (USA), or the locality (rest of the world), leaving a redirect that can be easily turned back into a stand-alone article without a fuss if notability is later asserted and proven. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed RfC

A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Time...

How much longer do you think I should wait before just moving the page in this situation? All the best, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't know what precedents exist for primacy on dab or page name conventions for airports. The article is GA, I would be inclined to avert controversy and let sleeping dogs lie. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'd try submitting a requested move to attract more eyes and letting people know on the main article page with a hatnote or something because it seems like the article was moved (because of a requested move) from "Midway Airport" to the current name. Otherwise, yea, I agree with Kudpung here... I don't see a problem with the current title. Airplaneman ✈ 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cody Orick

This article seems to be a blatant violation of BLP and WP:ATTACK, and also fails our notability guideline. I'm not canvassing, but, as an admin, I feel you need to intervene.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been done already and the author blocked. Another reason why it is so important for new page patrollers to recognise the differences between an innocuous non notable A7 and an attack page. Attack pages raise a special warning and will generally be deleted within minutes, while pages CSD tagged for other criteria can stay online queued for deletion for several hours depending on the backlog. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Glover (radio presenter)

This page is being persistently vandalised by someone using IP 220.233.24.246 Are you in a position to fix? Silent Billy (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it this time. In future please take it to the appropriate notice board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know there was such a thing I am afraid. I am happy to do that if it helps at all. Silent Billy (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have warned the user, and I have the page on my watchlist. If they vandalise again I will block them immediately. This is the start page for anything you wish to report. You can chose the appropriate noticeboard from the list. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and what you have done so far. Cheers Silent Billy (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we have a new pal editing this page. The subject is gently complaining about the vandalism on his high rating show. Can we protect the page please? Thanks Silent Billy (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:58.106.83.121 has been warned. WP:WARNING is also something you can do yourself. It usually works. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

• News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

• In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

• Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

• WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure that you are checking in on your students work for WP:USPP/C/11/PTE

Hey, just a happy reminder to make sure that you are regularly checking in on your mentees work for JMU'S Technical editing class, Sadads (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung, My name is Fabiola Lara and I am a sophomore at Syracuse University, studying International Relations and French. I am currently enrolled in the course, part of the Public Policy Initiative, Transnational NGOs in World Affairs and I would really appreciate it if you could guide and mentor me in editing the article on Primary Education as well as contribute to the Children International article. Growing up with a mother who has been an educator for 20 years, I always knew the importance of education that first started with building a strong foundation in early education. I am exceedingly passionate about the subject and am looking forward to researching and improving the article! Thank you and I will look forward to hearing from you very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falara (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fabiola. I would very much look forward to helping you through your project. I'm still out of town with very poor Internet connections for the next day or two, but I'll get back to you as soon as I get home. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:26, 5 April 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.— CT Cooper · talk 22:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No mail received.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you've replied now, so I assume it did come through eventually. :) CT Cooper · talk 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA stats

See User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles. Let me know what you think. —SW— ^chatter 23:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done - see your tp. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

About G. M. L. P. School, Paravannur

Wotcher,

Sorry, I was only trying to delete the redirect page. Please do the job since you are an administrator, and there isn't any relation between the redirect and the article. (Rameez pp (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

FYI

FYI All the best -- Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA standards

This is kinda task force related. I have compiled a collection of 80 standards used by people for RFA. You may be interested in them. I am going to do more statistical analysis in the suture. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 06:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

John Easterlin

This was not a good PROD candidate. First, the article had a reference until it was removed recently by an anon IP. The subject clearly meets wikipedia's notability guidelines(singing on a Grammy Award winning recording) and there was a reference when the article was originally created. Certainly the article is of poor quality and needs a lot of work, but finding references for this subject is not all that difficult. I would suggest taking some time to actually improve the referencing and content of the article rather than waist everyone's time with an ill thought out PROD. I am currently unable to spend much time on here, but in a few weeks I will try to get around to improve the article. In the mean time, any assistance you are willing to give on improving the article on Easterlin would be appriciated. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why I (who am doing the policing) or anyone else should clean up the mess you left with all your sockpuppetry. I have expressed good faith in not immediately deleting it as a creation by a sockpuppet, please consider doing it yourself as part of your plea bargain. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I already said I would above. Please stop sniping at me all the time. I am getting sick of it. Your comments at User talk:Voceditenore and elsewhere have been repetedly rude. I'm doing my best to improve my contributions here, and I think my editing over the last several months has shown that. I've taken your criticisms and voceditenore's to heart and been attempting to improve my overall editing. I haven't been creating a lot of stubs with poor referencing anymore, and I've been contributing a lot to FA articles of late. It's rather disheartening to see that my efforts haven't made any headway with you, and to see such an unforgiving attitude from an admin when I've been making an effort.4meter4 (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a watchlist with over 6,000 pages on it. I am not stalking you or your work which does indeed appear to have taken a turn for the better, and I'm not sniping, but I still haven't of course forgotten the unsolicited insulting remarks you made in bad faith on my tp a year ago. Let's leave it at that if you can't see your way clear to accepting my AGF - creations by socks can be deleted at any time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about those comments. Lets just consider it water under the bridge for now on please. In future, if you find problems with any of my previous work, please leave a friendly note on my talk page and I will try and address it as best I can. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Accepted. I've also been doing some work on John Easterlin for you although opera is nowhere in my sphere of activity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I am currently away from home, but will be back next weekend. I will try and improve the article further when I get back.4meter4 (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Gardens Primary School

• Thank you for your note on the above. I do respect other peoples edits as you will notice by the fact that I immediately reinstated your tag that I noticed that I had deleted in error. This school does make a claim of notability and so whilst only a primary school it may well be contested if a merge or redirect is proposed? Regards Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I really appreciate your enthusiasm to clean up articles - I wish more editors were so keen to improve the mess left by others, especially SPA accounts who create school articles and never bother to read the instructions and come back. By ignoring the 'In use' tag however, you actually wasted nearly 20 minutes of my time - not to worry, things happen ;) The school however does not make any claims to notability as it turns out, unless of course it can fully comply with WP:ORG, and will shortly be redirected per WP:WPSCH/AG to Kensington & Chelsea where it is already listed. Sorry about this confusion, but I'm very quick to catch and do the right thing with all school articles, as long as the current guidelines are in force. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• I really don't want to make an issue of this but I did not 'ignore the 'In use' tag. I deleted it in error and very quickly reinstated it. I've looked at your edit history and can see no way that I 'wasted 20 minutes of your time'. Also as I say the school does make a claim to notability but I agree it is a claim that could be contested. As to WP:WPSCH/AG this is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Talk:Geethgajan Keith Gauthum

FYI, I placed the warning on the user's talk page but the user then moved his/her user page (and hence his/her talk page) to an article.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the explanation. Apologies for the message :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh!

Okay..this is what bothers me. Look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RHM22. Open for less than a day, and already seven questions, and one of them from my buddy Keepscases. I'm getting just a little sick and tired of this. I'm almost ready just to remove them all..but that won't get me anywhere. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, it'll get you reverted, so that's "somewhere." I won't comment on the other questions, but I asked mine because I need to know where he intends to focus as an admin before I can decide whether to support. He seems like a decent editor, but his Wikipedia space edits are on the low side (I don't see any WP:AIV, WP:UAA or WP:RFPP activity) so it's essential I understand how he plans to use the tools, and whether he has any experience in the areas in which he intends to work. 28bytes (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What really blew me up was seeing Keepscases ask if he would ever get a Wikipedia tattoo. It never ends. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The nice thing about a Keepscases question is that if you get it wrong, few people are likely to oppose you for it. Sort of a bonus round, if you will. Yeah, I know, I'm the minority here. 28bytes (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Keepscases' tinkering with Wikipedia is utterly distateful. Others thinks it's harmless comic relief, while others think it's a highly intellectual experiment in psychology. Therefore there's been no consensus to rule out this kind of questioning - yet. Nevertheless, the wrong answer will invariably get an 'oppose' and we have no confirmation from the 'crats that they ignore these votes.

@Tofu, don't do anything rash - give it six months and see how you answer his question ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that Keepscases's questions are inappropriate, but in their defense, Keeps is rarely uncivil and they rarely oppose candidates, not to mention the questions are generally benign and not really stress-inducing. In my experience, at least. And they kind of offer a unique insight into the candidate's personality depending on how they're answered. I digress: Kudpung, I replied on my talk page. Regards, Swarm ^X 03:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I suppose I'm biased here because he left an uncommented oppose on my RfA, and I naturally assumed that it was due to my complaining about his questions. I hope this is not a breach of GF to say so. I did once leave a very friendly message on his tp as a sort of olive branch, but he did not respond. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that was your RfA. I entirely agree that was unacceptable, and looking back, I left some angry comments regarding that myself, so maybe I'm being hypocritical. Though I vaguely remember 28bytes explaining that their !vote was a result of some previous conflict or something... I guess I mentally let it slide. Not important at this point and, regardless, the community seems somewhat divided about the questions. Swarm ^X 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was no actual conflict - he rarely addresses any comments on his tp - I was just one of a great many who politely suggested that his RfA questions may be inappropriate (some people were not so polite). My own RfA came up shortly after and was borderline right up until the last 36 hours or so, and if it had been, we would not know how the 'crat would have counted such a vote. Another reason perhaps for suggesting that 'crats should always provide a closure summary in which they also detail which votes, if any, were discounted. This is within the remit of our RfA reforms. Ironically of course, there were a lot of support votes from people I have never heard of - I didn't know that I had such a fan club ;) I haven't finished analysing all the 135 votes yet against Snottywong's table. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. This is what I was thinking about; apparently you were "very vocal" about the "silly questions". That wouldn't have been a reasonable excuse, particularly if it was a borderline case. Oh, while I'm here, I went ahead and moved the coordinator list onto the task force page. Three should be all we need so no harm if that's it, though one more certainly wouldn't hurt. Regards, Swarm ^X 05:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Good thread. If being very vocal means the multiplicity of Keep's Qs on my silly-Q list, well that's the way the cookie crumbles. I was hell bent on RfA reform long before I had any intention of being an admin myself and the silly-Q list was made long before I decided/agreed to run. I was firm in the opinion that people should judge me on anything and everything I have done on Wikipedia and hence did not remove anything controversial as some do. On a slightly more humorous note, maybe Keeps was disappointed that I have no political, religious, or sexual orientation uboxen. There was also a silly oppose for leaving barnstars on my tp (whose attitude and sarcasm in many places gives me pause) although my response to the question unabiguously stated that I set no store by them. My RfA was strangely unique in many ways - did you notice that there were absolutely no tech or trick Qs? It also raises the point about an opposer who caused a pile-on, where the pile-ons later retracted their oppose, but the original opposer, (whose oppose was based on material taken entirely out of context) did not. There was also a question by a POV pusher who insists that editors should only write articles about the country they live in. I never intended my RfA to be an experiment, and I was badgered and convinced to run by highly experienced noms who were sure that I would pass 'with flying colors' (sic). It's a good RfA (that passed) to cite as an example of what's wrong with the system. It's not only the failed ones that demonstrate the problems with the process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) Excellent points. And looking back, some of those questions and the !votes based on them are physically stress-inducing to me. My god, "you live in Thailand but don't write about Thailand"? "Oppose per your TL;DR response to my inane question about barnstars"? Reading these things are stress-inducing. You're right, your RfA is a gleaming example of what's wrong, despite passing. It's amazing that some people took you seriously when you said you hadn't been given enough barnstars. I distinctly remember in one unbelievably harsh RfA from over a year ago, a user said "Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits" and out came the arrogance and immaturity accusations (at the end of the day the user left permanently). People really go into RfAs with the worst possible mindset.

It's funny, RHM22 is an editor with less than 4000 edits and virtually nothing outside of (very respectable) content work to judge their competency as an admin, yet they're running a 68% 69% (and rising) in their RfA. This seems relatively common; users with a passable but pretty low edit count and a decent history, even with numerous mistakes, will get quiet a generous number of support (nothing fundamentally wrong with this alone). Conversely, many fully qualified, highly experienced editors can see their RfA turn into an absolute bloodbath because of a few mistakes. I a quote of mine back from February sums it up: "In weaker candidates, many of us often look for a "net positive" and will support if we see one. I don't see the point of looking for one minor issue and opposing based on that for stellar candidates." It's a bizarre pattern; something I myself am "guilty" of. Your RfA was an example of this, you're completely qualified and very highly experienced, but a couple of out of context diffs paired with some flat-out ridiculous !voters caused a pile on that could have derailed your RfA-- and you were nominated by two sysops. It also proves that no RfA is safe from these problems. And, granted, I suppose I'm as guilty as any of the other opposers, but my justification is simply that I didn't conduct research myself or form a strong opinion either way; I just skimmed through and casually left a poorly reasoned pile on !vote. Anyway, I know I'm preaching to the choir and I'm probably getting TLDR as well (sorry). Regards, Swarm ^X 08:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Rest assured that discussions of this kind are certainly not TLDR, and I have a great respect for the way you retracted your oppose on my RfA - that kind of thing takes a lot of courage. That's one of the reasons I invited you along, and probably why you've chosen to be a major help on this project. This does not mean of course that you and I are expected to !vote the same way on other RfAs, far from it :) What Lambanog didn't check out, although I mentioned it in my rebuttal, was that I have contributed massively to several Thailand articles. I wrote Education in Thailand entirely myself except for the four line stub that it was, just for example. (I used to be a senior administrator of a group of over 40 large independent schools in the country). I know it's poorly sourced, but there is light consensus for this kind of 'non-original' original research where sources are extremely difficult to find - but don't tell everyone ;). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't thank you enough for inviting me to the project as well as just getting the whole thing off the ground. Though I haven't partaken in any reform efforts previously, I've always felt strongly about these issues and it feels great to work for a real solution. Swarm ^X 02:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Createangelos tentative RFA

Hi, Thx for the message on my talk page, "...Then see the successful RfA of a broadly experienced editor with a high edit count, that could have...."

I see that I fail also on the condition not to have tags on my articles. The articles I've started still have permanent 'need to be wikified' tags, and I don't know why or how to get rid of them. If that's the task of an admin to understand, I admit not being there yet.

I liked reading the justification for keeping barnstars on the talk page, and the philosophy of not always caring about honours otherwise. Note that 'discreet' is misspelled. In the list of conditions an admin should satisfy, there is an un-matching right parenthesis. I also liked reading about wanting to defend Wikipedia from manipulative practises; when you mentioned giving short shrift to arguments when people disagree, it left me wondering whether it has ever happened that people have seemed to be arguing against you but actually just clueless? In that case just referring them to the relevant links or documentation wouldn't be enough.....maybe sometimes people seem to be attacking when really they are looking for info or guidance, I wonder. Though on the other hand I actually said in my long reply to Eagle that what makes Wikipedia important is exactly that it is not a chat forum; maybe you're talking about how you deal with people who just view it as a chat forum. In that spirit, I won't go on at length here too, but just to say I'll leave my started admin application on my page mainly to look at again, but I will not transclude it. Createangelos (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the pages useful - do feel free to make any corrections to typos to anything I write (I get my languages mixed up sometimes), and don't hesitate to join in the discussions on the attached talk pages. My RfA criteria are quite strict, and I wouldn't have accepted the nomination if I hadn't met them myself, but it's worth reading the other user essays on their criteria too. When I give 'short schrift' is when someone argues cluelessly against a blatantly clear and unambiguous policy; WP:AfD is a classic venue for that sort of thing. There is nothing that says we can't chat about other things on our talk pages (see my essay: Wikipedia:Don't lose the thread), even people working in the same office will exchange comments about last night's football results. There are however people who register to use it just as a forum, or to exchange unearned barnstars with each other. I've seen comments from youngsters such as 'Great forum, this!', while others just make pretty user pages 'I only made it show my friends at grade school, I'm not interested in editing anything.' I don't believe in editcountitis, but if you want to bump up your edit count quickly, I do suggest a thorough read of WP:NPP and doing some patrolling - every tag, stub tag, or cat you add, and every other minor improvement to a page such as moving an incorrectly spelt page name, and making appropriate redirects will add to your score. It will also greatly deepen and broaden your editing skills and knowledge of policy. I see the 'need to be wikified' tags very often on the shortest stubs where there is nothing to be Wikified. Give me some links to the pages and I'll look into them for you. BTW: Untranscluded RfAs will get deleted sooner or later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi SilkTork. I've not seen you comment here yet. It might not be your specific area of interest, but I feel you would have a lot to offer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I will take a closer look when I get some time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. SilkTork *^YES! 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

(Barnstar moved to another page) Well thank you for that BW, it's most appreciated. It goes to prove that when advice is offered in a kind and encouraging way, people will take time to improve the Wkipedia in better ways - and don't forget, we're always open to suggestions on how we can improve things (RfA is the next item we're working on). You can help more! Now that you are an expert NPPer, you can pass on the same advice to others, and if you still need any help with anything else, you know whose door you can come knocking on :) keep up the good work! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that! Baseball Watcher 03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

...for changing that title. It's because of things like that and this that I haven't wanted anything to do with the RFA reform project. But if I can be confident that the good faith motives of myself and others won't be called into question merely because we have different approaches to how RfA should look I would be happy to chip in. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone had to get the ball rolling on RfA reform. Although that someone happened to be me, I'm an admin already and have nothing personal to gain by this reform. I don't own the project and never intended to, or even to be it's leader. That's why we have a task force and coordinators. Because I used a lot of my own research and experience to give some start-up body to the project pages, there is a firm, open, and very clear request for anyone to improve things as long as they are towards a single goal: RfA reform. That anyone includes you. Be bold and make changes yourself. Our main concerns are that the task force members can cooperate civily together, even if they don't agree on everything, and that the project stays focused and on track. I'm sure the community would be pleased to have the input and support of an editor with your particular experience. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not overly keen on "RFA reform" as I don't accept the premise that there's anything wrong. No-one's ever convinced me of that. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 03:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"IntoUniversity" Article

Hi Kudpung,

How can I improve the IntoUniversity article in order to show that it is notable enough for wikipedia?

Thanks!

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebkac (talk • contribs) 11:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi James. I have started a community debate on this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IntoUniversity. You would need to find significant coverage per WP:ORG to assert notability, and provide in-depth reliable sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, OK thats good. I am also curretnly looking around the internet & press to see where else they have been mentioned, so will make the article much better over the next hour. Thank you for your patience & help! Pebkac (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do be sure to check out what we mean by WP:RS (reliable sources) at Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll be sure to follow that, thank you for your help :) Pebkac (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I think it looks like a consensus to keep the "IntoUniversity" article has been reached, would it be possible for us to remove the deletion notice please? Thanks! Pebkac (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus will be evaluated by a non involved admin on the full elapse of 7 days. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK that's great, thanks for your help Kudpung! Pebkac (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Trick

In the context of "the questions they ask", does trick mean "trick question" (as in a question with a hidden purpose) or simply "trick" (as in a prank or attempt to deceive)? Swarm ^X 23:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just this very moment been looking at that thread again. I've clearly expressed in the project and in the 'Thankyou' thread above, that some of the material used to get the project started was my own, and may well be subjective, and anyone - with good reason - can change what they like. That is the case with the selection of questions I made months ago before I even dreamed of becoming an admin myself, or being the one to start a project on reform. The use of the word trick may have been an unfortunate lexical choice for some, and my personal view is that it could be considered also bad faith to to criticise what has obviously been done in the very best of good faith, viz, improving the RfA system for which there is overwhelming opinion that the process needs reform. Accusing for bad faith when obviously none is intended, is also naturally bad faith; 'bad faith' and 'good faith' are often used as straw man arguments in Wikipedia discussions. The Oxford American Dictionary gives us among many other definitions: Trick: noun - 1. a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone : he's a double-dealer capable of any mean trick. I don't think for a moment that people will believe that is what I meant. A better interpretation would have been (also from OAD): tricky: - adjective ( trickier , trickiest ) (of a task, problem, or situation) requiring care and skill because difficult or awkward : applying eyeliner can be a tricky business | some things are very tricky to explain, (Ironically, before I retired I was a lexicographer on one the world's best known brands of dictionaries - not the AED, though, which comes bundled with the Mac OS). FWIW, there are other 'tricky' questions in the list, but to avoid duplication, they appear in other sections. Mkativerata has has clearly expressed that they do not consider there is any need for RfA reform, and in deference to their comment, I have changed the title of the question section, and I will shortly be archiving (not striking or deleting) that thread as one that does not move us along. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll just say that I think the root of the disagreement between Mkativerata and myself is that I have no idea what the hell Mkativerata's perceived problem is. They're trying to argue something, but for the life of me I can't decipher what the point is. Swarm ^X 05:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Mk's disagreement is especially with you. He passed for sysop with an absolutely brilliant RfA, somehow got disillusioned with adminship, and handed the tools back a few months later. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A concern

In the proposal it clearly states the proposal is not about "Desysoping" amongst other things. Many comments are gaining momentum suggesting that one is unachievable without the other being integral. I am concerned because this is a major consideration which has the potential to undermine success. What are your thoughts regarding these developments? Do you think we can do one without the other? Do you think we could do both? My76Strat (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a system for desysoping, and according to the research made by User:WereSpielChequers, whose opinions on RfA matters I hold with the highest respect and greatest esteem, these methods appear to effective. Nevertheless, there are indeed admins who , IMO, while they might not actually abuse the use of the tools, their other actions and comments may seem to suggest that their mindset is not wholly appropriate to the way I feel that admins should be a role model and lead by example. However, I see very little potential for removing admin rights from sysops who abuse their 'power', and who intimidate other users. There are several reasons why I feel that desyoping should not be part of the remit of this project (as shown already in the aggregate of my comments on the project's various talk pages):

• Neither !voters nor candidates appear particularly worried about length of tenure, hence it's apparently not one of the main reasons why good editors are staying away from running for office. Any comments to the contrary appear to come from users who do not generally take part in RfAs or in discussions about its process. We have a lot of on- and off-Wiki explanations from qualified possible candidates as to why they won't run, and this does not seem to one of them. The main reason for declining is that they don't want to be subjected to the bloodbath. In it's present form, RfA is very much a lottery based on the turnout, and it it is unfair to subject them to unreasoned or unreasonable !voting that may and can sufficiently discourage even the best editors from continuing to work at Wikipedia.
• Candidates can opt for the voluntary admin recall system.
• Many admins, some with overwhelming support at their RfA, have reaslised their inadequacies for the task and have relinquished the tools voluntarily, others just get fed up with it and hand the tools back. (this, for example, would probably be the route I would personally take).
• Desyoping has been a major topic of perennial discussion that never reached consensus stage.
• To include desyoping in this project would overburden the work of the task force. The current project addresses a two-stage process for bringing about reform: a compact task force that can work without background noise to formulate some concrete proposals, then offer those proposals to the broader community - which will then of necessity incur a round traditional, interminable discussions.
• Our goals are a clean up of the current process itself i.e., irrelevant questions, irrelevant and/or improper !votes, off-topic discussions, maturity of participation, civility issues, and preventing too many AfD from candidates who are clearly not ready for adminship. I think strong rationale from the task force participation can achieve this.
• There may be discussion in other places that we are not privy to, about radical reforms of the process, such as for example secret ballot judged by a panel of bureaucrats, Arbcoms, or the WMF, etc. This may well come suddenly as an edict from on high, and if it does, we'll just have to accept it, but it's not a reason to give up now.
• Finally, since moving this project away from my own user space, this is no longer a personal initiative, and it is 'owned' by the community. I would nevertheless recuse from active participation in this project if it becomes a discussion about adminship in general, and hope that other coordinators and task force members would continue to keep the focus on the essentials and the good work.

Thank you for your concerns, and rest assured that I/we really value and appreciate your input in particular (my own RfA was also a particularly nasty experience). I hope all this answers your question. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that well thought response. I agree with the points you have highlighted. I am not as experienced as you with moving these kinds of proposals through the system and yield greatly to you expertise. I am only curious if the suggestions to incorporate the two separate issues should be rebutted as the come in, or is it best to simply read the comment knowing it is a bit inappropriate having been stated as not part of this proposal, and otherwise let it go? My76Strat (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

My only experience comes from 20 years as a project consultant and college administrator. Wikipedia is a totally different kettle of fish, and I'm learning all the time. The strength of the task force is essential for keeping comments on track, and demands a lot of comittment to the project. No one should hesitate for a moment, in the politest form of course, to point out to a user, even to another task force member, if commenting gets out of focus. Cleaning up RfA starts here on our own project! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Strat's concerns are valid and I agree with kp that we should stay completely on topic, before we get a subgroup who want to seriously start working on desysopping and other types of administration reform as part of RfA reform. I completely agree that it needs to be addressed sometime and somehow, but this project is not the place. Swarm ^X 05:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

My own early experience with admins was very negative and was the very reason why I became interested in the RfA process - long before I had the slightest inkling of being an admin myself. On my candidacy, I never gave a second thought to how long I would last in office. To be quite truthful, I probably said I would go for ARC because the !voters appear to like it, and anyway, I think it's a good system, although I don't actually know without researching, how often it's been applied and what the outcomes were. I did taken part in a voluntary re-sysoping (User:Nev1 - a great admin, BTW) of one who had voluntarily handed the tools back. However, I'm firm about not wanting to take part in any discussions about adminship in general on the reform project, for the reasons stated above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

London Undead

Hi,

I am the bands manager for London Undead and I would like to write and article about my band on Wikipedia. Everytime I try to make one it keeps on getting deleted. I do not make bias comments in the article and I do have permition to write this article. Can you help me make this article without it being deleted please?

Regards

London Undead Band manager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 9599 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled#User:Doc9871

Hi Kudpung,

I've decided to grant User:Doc9871 the right as although he doesn't meet the 50 article guideline, he is an editor in good standing, I have had good interactions with him in the past and trust him.

I hope you don't mind this action.

Thanks,

The Helpful One 23:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

His contempt for administrator decisions does not demonstrate that he can be trusted with anything. Probably best if we let Arbcom decide just how much the rules can be bent. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think going to Arbcom would be quite unnecessary over this, seriously. What I should have done in the first place was to ask an admin for the priv instead of going to a board where a random admin could decide on it. That's what I did for a potentially far more trustworthy priv like Rollback. I figured that since File mover was granted on the board, there'd be no issue with giving me the priv. Thehelpfulone did nothing wrong, and neither did you for denying it, Kudpung. However, I am a quite trusted user, and that is no accident. Cheers... Doc talk 05:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am more concerned with the unilateral reversion of an administrator's decision of a due process, than with your requesting a tool for which you don't even nearly meet the basic requirement. I had thoroughly reviewed your editing history before making my decision. Arbcom will decide which admin was out of order. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I made the mistake of not going directly to an admin instead of that board.[1] You never would have seen the request nor had the opportunity to decide whether or not I had "open contempt" for admin processes. It would be very sad and unfortunate if you chose to call Thehelpfulone's conduct into question at Arbcom, and I know a couple of arbitrators that would probably have granted me the right had I gone directly to them. Don't blame him: blame me for not going direct to the source. Trustworthiness is demonstrated and earned, and I know a few autopatrollers who have never even created a single article, yet have the priv. Do what you must, but be prepared. Cheers... Doc talk 06:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't appear to have understood. The issue is with one administrator overriding another without polite discussion. That's what Arbcom will decide. If Wikipedia was managed the way you would like it to be, there wouldn't be a serious Wikipedia project anymore, and there would be no need for admins, bureaucrats or Arbcom. NPP 'priviliges are not part of the discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I hope you have a slew a diffs to back up your allegations of the general contempt of process you accuse me of. You are picking a losing fight here, I must say. Your best bet is to stick with the "50 article" guideline instead of the "I don't like that he didn't accept my word as law". Good luck... Doc talk 06:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)"I know a few autopatrollers who have never even created a single article..." Who? Can you name one? I ask out of curiosity. On another note, perhaps thehelpfulone is a fan of Grace Hopper. Swarm ^X 09:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I can surely name one... but I won't embarrass them by mentioning them here. See, back in the day, autopatrolled privs were handed out like candy to users that could be trusted. It's infinitely harder to become an admin nowadays, I should note. Which is why I'll continue to behave like an admin when it comes to many issues, yet very likely NEVER submit to the joke that RfA has become. 14 year-old video game/TV show episode article creators are the gauntlet I would face? Meh. I can think of a few others cut from the same cloth that I am as well, but I won't embarrass them by mentioning them either. Cheers... Doc talk 10:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

'Back in the day', adminship was handed out like candy. And I have first-hand evidence of how some of them still behave today. 14 year-old video game/TV show episode article creators are the gauntlet I would face? Very true - not to mention the ones who run for office and sometimes even got the bit - that's why a dedicated team is trying this very moment to that all changed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you'll see me there ;> Running for adminship, that is. Everyone that's ever disagreed with me or thought me "snarky" would try to shoot me to pieces (not to mention pile-on votes: simply "Oppose per Such-and-Such"), and I'd have to be all "nice" and not respond. And I've met quite a few of the admins that got the bit too early back in the good old days. Sometimes they are dragged out kicking and screaming, but for the most part they know when to use their tools and when not to. Kind of like me ;> Doc talk 10:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise that my action would cause such a debate. Kudpung, please accept my sincerest apologies, I know of admins who are happy if you revert their decision so long as you inform them accordingly. In hindsight, it would have been better to discuss this with you and I admit that I made that mistake. I hope you accept my apology and no longer feel the need to escalate this matter to ArbCom, but that is ultimately your decision. Kind Regards, The Helpful One 11:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Replying on your tp.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, at least that's over! :) Congratulations on your adminship by the way, welcome to the cabal, you've certainly taken your first admin dispute well! If you're ever unsure or need a second opinion on something, please feel free to ask on my talk page or by sending me an email. Hope this helps, The Helpful One 11:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Protestantism in England

I created the page because the Protestantism in Europe box is just one mass of red links. If you can find a better way round it please feel free...andycjp (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The page is not a proper redirect. The only workaround is for me to delete it as an uncontroversial housekeeping task. There's nothing to stop you making proper redirects if you wish, but they must not contain any other information. We'll just have to live with the redlinked nav box until someone turns the links into articles. See WP:REDIRECT for instructions and if you get stuck ask me again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Redirected to English Reformation. andycjp (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Armbrust has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

copyright granted.

Hello,

You just deleted an article titled Chris Harrison (artist),Permission from solicitor, publicist and all other parties have been approved.

Kind Regards. D.H Campbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOTHERname81 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but there has never been a page in Wikipedia with such a title. We twice deleted one with the name Chris harrison (click the red link to see the deletion log and the reason for deletion). I'm afraid we can't accept material copied from other websites or articles you write about yourself or your company. Please see the messages on your talk page at User talk:ANOTHERname81. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User pages

Hi Kudpung,

Thanks for the message. I marked that page in error, thinking it was in mainspace. I usually wouldn't tag user pages for deletion in this way.

Regards, Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

I have replied to your message on my talk page. As explained there, problems not of my making prevented me from replying earlier. I have no such excuse for not joining in at you RfA reform project. When you first told me about it I thought I didn't have time, and would do it in a couple of days or so, and then it got left. Maybe I will comment there soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now written an answer to your further comment about Ateeq Hussain Khan Bandanawazi. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Where has It gone now ........?

Where did the actual Task Force list get to? I just want to be able to click those links, lol! Pesky (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

At WP:RFA2011, but Swarm has transcluded it to most of the sub pages too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

• News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news

• WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful RfAs

Hi Kudpung. Since Worm agreed to the page move between User:Worm That Turned/Unsuccessful RFAs and Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Unsuccessful RfAs on his talk page, I've gone ahead and done the move. Regards, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. I hadn't seen his reply yet, having some intermittent connection problems. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wallpost

Hi Kudpung. Just now i create a wiki page [[2]] but this page has been deleted. Can you please tell me why this page was deleted? If any mistakes please tell me i will correct it. Thank You, Bangar Reddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abreddy1 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Abreddy1. please read the big pink message on the Wallpost page, and the messages on your talk page. Everything is explained for you. I'm very sorry, but I don't think your page will be allowed to stay in Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, would salting the title help? I see it has been re-created two times now.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had salted both of them Wallpost and WALLPOST already. Let me check, I've had some bad internet connections this evening, and the Wiki server has been slow, so I'm not sure if the button pressing action went through. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it worked on both about two hours ago. Only for a week this time though. That should give the creator enough to give up on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Abreddy1, at the time that editor posted the above message here, the latest message on their talk page said "A tag has been placed on Wallpost, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page", and signed by you, so it was reasonable for them to ask the question. I have actually stopped putting db-multiple warnings on user talk pages because I find that message unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realised that myself afterwards, and I will bear it in mind for the future. The article would never have stood a chance, but Abreddy kept recreating instead of pressing the hang-on button. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

help

I would really appreciate your help in dealing with the vandals on the page I created. I'm sorry if you thought I was not following rules by deleting some comments but you have to understand that these vandals are absolutely in the wrong and are bullies. I would rather you delete the entire page than to have these people get to post any of their negative comments on this page. (Riotgirrl1 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

I have warned the other editor to cease the 3-revert-rule infraction, and you must do the same. It is serious offense and you will both end up being blocked for disruptive editing whoever is in the wrong. I'm looking into it now to get to the bottom of all this. Once articles have been created, we don't delete them until we have thoroughly examined the references to see if they can be kept. Please now be patient while I look into all this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Louise Carey talk page dispute

In looking over that talk page comment at Talk:Louise Carey a third and fourth time, the comment does appear to be nothing but an attempt to slander Ms. Carey. There are two external links provided, one to a sales site that proves nothing, and the other a dead link to Twitpic. The comment does raise a legitimate concern that the article is written by the subject, but with very weak, almost non-existent evidence for the other allegations, I think this should qualify as a legitimate removal of talk page content under WP:TPO, specifically that it is libel. If you are amenable, I would like to remove it and replace it with a comment like "Comment removed as libel per WP:TPO. Legitimate concerns regarding COI remain." —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to AGF on this for a long time, but I'm as sure as anyone that there is a strong COI here. I didn't think the comment was particularly libellous, but now the article creator has hopefully understood that 3rr is not the way to go, you can remove the message, but just use something like 'Rm inappropriate comment' as your edit summary - don't mention libel, it might be Heinz. In the meantime, Ill sort the COI and other stuff out - I may have to protect the page from both of them and AfD it. We'll see. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Article: Advanced International Translations

Dear Kudpung, the Advanced International Translations article now scores 7 references from the 3d party sources (the independent media in translation industry), as you may see yourself, so would it be ok if you removed the notability tag? Thank you and have a nice day! Best wishes, Olga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguaua (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the references are not independent, or not reliable sources, or don't give substantial coverage. The best, in my opinion, is http://www.amicus-transtec.com/en-gb/Translation_Software/J_Zetzsche_ToolKit_Reccomended/Translators_tool_kit_reccomended_software.html. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid James is quite right. I'm not saying that it's not a notable compny, bu we do not have sufficient proof that it is. Such proof will come from from in depth coverage in articles in print media, and important awards that the company has won etc. In the sources provided, I fail to see any relevant connection other than translation tools in general. After checking through the references and looking for others, I found unfortunately that it mat even be necessary to decline this article for the Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Could I please have some more of your time to revise?

I see your point of view and respect your following the rules. But as far as I understand, Wikipedia is open for the companies notable in a specific industry. AIT is notable in translation indusrty. I'm sure you know that translation industry is very Internet-centered nowadays and mostly doesn't provide printed media. Still, it relies on the points of view of specific industry media.

There may be an argue on whether the translation industry itself may be notable enough for Wikipedia, but as it is decided that it is according to the number of articles related (such as in Categories "Translation software" and "Translation companies"), I think it is fair to rely upon the respected sources in translation industry.

The references provided for AIT are from the most respected translation industry sources, such as Multilingual, Translation Journal and Global Watchtower and most reviews are written by 3d-party experts. Indeed, the most important reference, as your colleague has noted, is the Toolkit Recommended translation software list. Two of AIT products were named among the 13 most useful tools for translators in opinion of a leading translation industry expert (and then reprinted by another reliable 3d party source). And AIT's Projetex was named in Global Watchtower translation management tools classification. This may appear not important in comparison with New York Times coverage, but I'm afraid there aren't any translation industry players that can make such coverage (and many of those who are on Wikipedia live don't have 3d party references at all). So wouldn't it be just to give them the equal treatment at Wikipedia?

Thank you for your time.

Linguaua (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC about the clerks idea

Kudpung, I have requested comment into whether the clerks idea should be initiated immediately. mauchoeagle 00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn and I am looking for ways in which I can get more members into the task force. I think at least 50 members would coax JWales into letting us have our way. mauchoeagle 01:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't need Jimbo's approval. Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia is not an monarchy. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 01:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, I thought it couldn't be done without his approval. mauchoeagle 01:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Although his opinions and advice are highly valued, The Wikipedia does not need JW's approval for anything, the Wikipedia is run by consensus of the community. If you have any proof that JW has voiced an opinion against this project, please do not hesitate to let the task for know about it. The task force is already composed of some senior members of the community including bureaucrats. The task force certainly does not need 50 members - a quick review of the project's principles and objectives will clearly explain that the task is supposed to be a group of experienced and active members, not simply a list of people who wish to vote on its ideas. Indeed, there may even be reason to approach some task force members at this stage to ask them to clearly define their participation. Too many task force members will stifle the work and will turn the work into another traditional fiasco that WT:RfA is, and which most RfC always become. We'll have that soon enough when we launch the finalised proposals properly at RfC level. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation

Wow. I was actually dropping by to suggest something similar to what you said directly above. What do you think about requesting that inactive task force members reconfirm their membership? We just boot anyone who doesn't do so. I'd be happy to handle the whole thing, it would filter out those who aren't doing anything and/or don't intend to do anything. WP:Wikiproject Wikify did this a short while back and I'm sure they didn't invent the idea. Swarm ^X 05:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion: let's give them something to do. Perhaps we can ask each editor who has signed up to suggest which two or three ideas/proposals they would most like to see move forward, with their reasoning. 28bytes (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :RfA reform is a finite project which will close down when it either reaches its goals, or hopelessly flounders. Most traditional WP projects are on-going and have both a membership and a task force, but they generally do not focus on controversial items of policy that attract a lot of background noise. The whole concept of RFA reform 2011 is to move ahead with as little disruption as possible until the times comes to make some firm proposals to the broader community. I'm reluctant to suggest removing editors from the task force, but clearly some of them may not have the time or required experience they thought they had to take part actively and objectively. I think your suggestion is excellent and I'm quite happy to leave it up to you and your discretion. However, Pesky has recently sent out a gentle nudge to all members, and we don't want to be seen as task masters. If you go ahead, choose carefully, review their participation to date, and their experience at Wikipedia. Some of them might not have as much time to devote as others, but they are people with whom I personally have excellent collaboration even if we sometimes don't always share the same opinions, and they are highly qualified - when they do say something, it hits home. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with 28bytes, Instead of booting them out of the force, Give them something to do. mauchoeagle 06:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@28bytes and MauchoEagle -- Signing your name to something is not necessarily the same as being seriously committed. I do think 28's idea is is worth consideration, but we should filter out those whose hearts aren't in it first. I'm not talking about booting everyone who hasn't been hyperactive in the project. I'm just suggesting that we politely ask our inactive members to confirm that they really are interested in taking part in this initiative. I would be surprised if every single member confirmed- I've signed up for things that I never got involved in myself. Swarm ^X 06:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Also a very good suggestion 28. Perhaps split the active ones off into small groups of 3 or 4 based on which sections of the project they appear to have been most active on. Giving them something to do will give them a greater sense of involvement, especially the younger and enthusiastic ones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that if we're going to ask people a question anyway, asking "which proposals sound good to you?" will give the task force more useful data and will engage the editors better than "are you still interested?" would. If they're still interested, great! But even better would be to know what folks are willing to push for (or at least support) so we can weed out the proposals and ideas that no one is particularly enthusiastic about, and put our focus on the proposals and ideas that have broader support. 28bytes (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, that is what I am talking about 28. mauchoeagle 07:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We want an active and efficient task force. The task force is it. Rather than continuing to "nudge" and "ask for opinions" and "encourage contribution" with users who don't intend to contribute a damn thing, we should gently filter out the dead parts of the list to ensure that this effort comprises motivated, active users. We have multiple users who have not contributed anything whatsoever to the project since signing up. We've already sent out "nudges," many of which have been completely ignored. Asking some of the members if they plan on doing anything to contribute to this project isn't going to have a negative effect. The opinions of all are welcome- even Keepscases is a member :P. However, those who don't intend to do anything shouldn't bother signing up in the first place. It's a task force for crying out loud! Swarm ^X 07:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misinterpreted your suggestion re "requesting that inactive task force members reconfirm their membership"? I inferred you were planning to reach out to all those who'd signed up, active or not. My point was that if we're going to reach out, we ought to try to get some addition useful information from everyone while we're at it. Just getting an "oh yeah, I'm still interested" from folks isn't all that helpful on its own, IMO. 28bytes (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just asking them to reconfirm will probably just get a 'Yes' from them all. I've tried to AGF and avoid mentioning Keeps till now, but now it's been brought up I can't deny a niggling doubt. He doesn't like me, he's certainly not in favour of any reform or moderation of the RfA 'Question Time', and it raises the matter of what he would support. In the meantime I've updated the text in the page and section banners on the main page at WP:RFA2011. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we may have misinterpreted each other, actually. I was under the impression that you thought an "outreach" effort would be ideal instead of a 'reconfirmation request'. I apologize if I was mistaken. To be clear, I would not ask everyone to reconfirm, I would evaluate the member list and request it of only those who are completely inactive. So, just for the sake of being on the same page, how would you feel about your idea running parallel/being part of the confirmation thing? If you guys don't think the confirmation idea is necessary at all, I'll defer to your judgment but I think it's a reasonable idea. Swarm ^X 08:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My recommendation was for what to request from the people you contact; I will defer to you and Kudpung as to whom to contact. 28bytes (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks. Swarm ^X 18:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has misinterpreted anyone, the suggestions here are all very good, it's just hat the mesages re out of sinc due to the edit conflicts. What I have understood is: Careful selection of whom to ask to reconfirm - so for example you could leave people like us and WSC and Useight of it. Tofu is young and keen and has an excellent grasp of how things work, but he's tied up in RL for a moment but he will be back. I wouldn't badger the admins and crats, but possibly concentrate on newbs, and people whose edit histories, talk pages, block logs and SNOWed RfAs might reveal recent activity that needs more experience to take part in a project like this. When you see what's left, go ahead with the suggestions of giving them some work to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I like many of the ideas proposed here. I agree that inactive members have a negative impact on the project and think that asking the inactive editors to reconfirm their membership of the task force is reasonable. While, as Kudpung has said, most of the inactive editors will simply say yes (when asked to reconfirm their membership) then go back to being inactive, it might succeed in getting rid of some. I like 28bytes idea of "giving them something to do". I'm sure some task force members are inactive simply because they don't think there is anything for them to do (or they are not sure what to contribute to). All this being said, I also agree with Kudpung's above statement that the members targeted by this reconfirmation idea should be chosen with caution. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote

• ...and then there are all those who recognise "something must be done", but perpetually oppose the something that's being proposed in favour of a "better idea". The mechanism is rather like using a chat-show phone-in to manage the intricacies of a federal budget – it does not work for issues that need time, thought, responsibility and attention. I doubt this problem can be fixed – since it needs structural change to decision making – which is impossible for precisely the same reasons. —Scott MacDonald

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 4, 22 April 2011 This is the fourth issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Voting begins for steering committee - The voting phase for the Wikipedia Ambassador Steering Committee election started this week, and will continue through 27 April. Seeking more Regional Ambassadors in the US - We are still looking for Regional Ambassadors for the United States! The deadline has been extended to Friday, April 29th. India pilot being organized now - Plans are currently underway for a pilot expansion of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – in India! Hisham Mundol and other Wikimedia staff have begun recruiting Campus Ambassador candidates for Pune. Document DYK, peer review and other milestone at the trophy case - If students you are working with (or any others you notice) are doing work that makes to DYK, is nominated for Good Article status, or is just solid content worth marking, then please help us document the students' success at the trophy case. Ambassador program at Wikimania - We're planning a set of Wikipedia Ambassador Program presentations for Wikimania 2011, in Haifa this August. Changes to mailing list - A new low-volume mailing list, [Ambassador-announce-l], is being created. It will be reserved for key announcements and news, which we'd like all ambassadors to be subscribed to.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ygm

Hello, Kudpung. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nothing pressing. Swarm ^X 00:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:New pages

Hi there. If I wanted to sugest these new templates where would be the correct place to do this? Oddbodz (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. First and foremost probably best on the WT:NPP page. That (and it's sub pages) is where the changes to NPP are discussed, and the pages are on the watchlists of active admins and NPP project minders. The most important thing to understand here is that no major changes to policy or process are done without consensus. If you get enough interest at project level, it can be proposed at the village pump. if it gets enough support there, it will go to a central Request for Discussion.
My personal view on these templates however, is that although I am very heavily in favour of any measures that will improve the quality of New Page Patrolling (perhaps by limiting it to users with significantly more experience), and while I'm equally strongly in favour of the new rules that are being discussed to limit who can create new pages, I feel any new ideas at this time are coming at the wrong moment and would not help the current situation. Creating an article that merely passes as fleetingly approved for immediate retention, is not a big deal. Just having created an article that does not get templated or deleted is not reason for congratulation or award. For one thing, as any seasoned new page patroller knows, around 80% of all new articles go to CSD, PROD, or AfD, a huge number get marked with maintenance and multiple issue tags, and a significant number get tagged and deleted later.
The template might heighten the disappointment of editors who rejoice at the congratulations, only to be told later that their article is crap and heading for the recycle bin - or already in it. At a time when we are trying to keep authors, this is probably not the best way to go about it, especially when New Page Patrol is already in an appalling state and frightening people away due to the high number of inexperienced users who aren't sure how to use the 100s of templates they are supposed to be using already. I'm not trying to discourage you for coming up with ideas on new page creation or their control. What I am saying is that it would be an even better idea right now to wait and see if in a couple of weeks we even have need for new page patrolling by newbies, or to congratulate everyone who creates a new, clean, ROM stub. One question our recent research also aims to answer is why the newest and most inexperience editors always head for the semi-administrative tasks rather than demonstrating their skills at providing or improving content. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Would you mind re-wording the your question. Oddbodz (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please ndent your messages. I've tried to be of help here, and if anything is not clear please let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that more discussion is required before a suggestion is added to WP:NPP to template a user's talk page when an article they created has been successfully patrolled. There are all kinds of problems I can think of with such a suggestion. As it is currently proposed, I would oppose it. Also, my opinion is that the wording of the template is misleading. Looks like the template was just added to TfD. I'll comment more there. —SW— ^spout 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nong Khai

Do you have pix of the "Garden of Sorrows"? --Pawyilee (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, and I don't know it, but if you tell me what and where it is, I'll go and make some for you when I get home next week. I'm down near Korat for the next couple of days. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Breawycker's talk page.
Message added 17:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Apple Farm Inn (San Luis Obispo, California)

Good evening, Please see the talk page for Apple Farm Inn (San Luis Obispo, California) for a further explanation of and my views on the newborn article. I encourage you to post on the talk page so I can know your opinions and we can work accordingly to reach the best solution.

AGF :) RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 06:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeff mccomsey

Hi Kudpung... this is the second time in two days this has happened... The original article appears to have been speedily deleted at the moment I was tagging it as a stub, resulting in an article creation artifact, where it looks like I was the original contributor.

Strangely, it was deleted under CSD-A3... I'm not sure I agree with that. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, according to the logs, it was deleted once under A3. According to the content that I have just checked, it should have been A7 and would still probably have been deleted as not demonstrating notability. I just BLPPRODed the recreation, instead of tagging it for CSD as it might assert notability if it is properly referenced, but at the moment it has no sources. The article is very poor quality, has a misspelly pagenasme, and I have found no RS for it. Nevertheless, as I said, I have not deleted it. If you wish to query the earlier deletion, do not hesitate to discuss it with the deleting admin, and the patroler who appears to have wrongly tagged it. Articles can quite legitimately be BLPPRODDED very quickly, the idea being to catch the creator while they are still logged in .It only takes one suitable RS to remove a BLPPROD tag. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi both. Given that that article seems to be staying I have restored the deleted edits to allow for proper attribution to the original author. Cheers, nancy 15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nancy. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My concern was mainly that, by a quirk of an edit conflict, the wrong user had been notified of the PROD. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

re congratulations

Thanks likewise on admin Michael

Thanks...

Yes, I wasn't expecting too much from it in terms of support, but equally, I wasn't quite expecting it to be as stressful as it has been. I'm not surprised the experience proves too much for some. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're doing OK for the moment. i won't tell you how stressful mine was right up until theast minute. keep your fingers crossed, watch out for tricky Qs - remember it's an open book exam, and don't feel you have to make rebuttals to every 'Oppose' however mean they may seem. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

kdp

hi kudpung, it sounds like that u r a southindian (from ur name).r u indian ? Adi21124 (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Adi21124 • Talk2Me

Hi. If you look at my user page you'll find everything you need to know. If it's of any interest however, I have lived and worked in Delhi for a short while. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

it means U have visited delhi ok can u tell me the date cause i m living in delhi.reply me backAdi21124 (talk)Adi21124 • Talk2Me

Egmont (media group)

Hi Kudpung

I'm fairly new at editing wikipages, but I hope you can help me on my path to become a better wikipedian. I want to make a general page about the Egmont media group, this page should solely be based on facts, an should have no advertisement value.

I can see that you have marked the page: (diff | hist) . . Egmont media group‎; 11:21 . . (+94) . . Kudpung (talk | contribs) (Added

with parameters notability, primarysources and self-published tag to article using TW)

What is it that I'm doing wrong since this page isn't being accepted?

Br Pbrun Pbrun (talk)

Hi.Egmont (media group) now redirects to Egmont Publishing, a page that I have not edited or tagged. If you would like to know why it was redirecetd, you can look up the history of the Egmont (media group) redirect by clicking on the redirected from... link at the top of the Egmont Publishing page; then on the 'history' tab of the redirect page. You will see a full list of edits that were made right up until it was redirected. If you then click on any 'diff' on that list you will see an exact copy of the page as it was at that edit.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

it seems that the two pages have been more or less alike therefore the redirect. When I add info to the page about Egmont media group in general it is deleted because the content resembles the content on the Egmont publishing page. Wikipedia has apparently focus on fewer pages with more information, which seems resenable. Therefore I would like to change the heading of Egmont publishing to Egmont Media Group so that I can add the right facts at one page. but it doesn't as a possiblity. I have then merged the info from Egmont Publishing into Egmont Media group. The question is then, will this prevent the Egmont media group wiki from being deleted, and that the Egmont Publishing is then deleted instead? Pbrun (talk)

Egmont Publishing appears to be sufficiently referenced and not in danger of deletion. Please remember however that any information you add to it must also be referenced to third-party media and that self-published sources by the group or any of its constituents are not acceptable. If after making substantial additions you find that the focus of the article has shifted to another entity of this organisation, you can make a suggestion for moving it (renaming) on the article's talk page. If a discussion between the contributing editors reaches a consensus for the move, it can be done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Richardson, TX

Hello Kudpung, I like your suggestions related to the Richardson, TX article. For some reason every two years around this time, the period before local elections are held in Richardson, many people try to put out false information making the state of the city sound better or worse than the facts. I think it is due to people wanting incumbent council members to either win or loose and be replaced. Thank you for you help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewLB20 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, please remember to sign your posts :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)