User talk:Kudpung/Archive Feb 2019
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 14:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
∯WBGconverse 14:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Is The Signpost more like Associated Press, or more like Slate?
[edit]I'd like to put out a signed "From the editors" in February stating our editorial policy on POV in News and notes and other sections that some readers appear to expect as "straight" reporting (even Gallery??!). As far as I'm concerned that's not our policy, nor is it an engaging writing style for a publication like this one. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ha! Can you read my mind Bri? Let's work on it together - offline. I'm rather sick and tired of the same anti-Signpost commenting, in fact if they want a Wikipedia style project, some of them would now be heading for warnings for harassment, be they rank-and-file, admins, or arbs, and/or former Signpost staff. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Let's. Just so you know, I'll be on two-week wikibreak after today. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Further education colleges
[edit]Hi Kudpung, what infobox should further education colleges be using? I've come across some using Infobox school and some Infobox college (redirect)/university. Infobox school (taking on from former UK one) is used for schools and sixth form colleges which both have dedicated Get information about schools (URN) and Ofsted pages, so works well with the template. I've noticed this is the same for further education colleges but don't have the dedicated parameters in the college/university one. Should we change these to use Infobox school? Or should these dedicated parameters be copied across? This college for example, was already using Infobox school and I've just updated the infobox and some other minor cleanup. You'll see the URN and Ofsted links work. Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- You have stumbled on a Village college a 14+ establishment unique to Cambridge. It has an URN as Ofsted regards it as a school for assessment purposes and a UKPRN as a college. (URN: 130610, UKPRN: 10001116) I am shaky as to why it doesn't have a LAESTAB (the old dfeno)too. As you know I am plugging away at the Infobox schools team to modify the infobox to remove the fixed link to the the Department for Education, accept that UK schools have both a DfE LAESTAB (dfeno) which does not change when the school is rebrokered, and the Ofsted adopted URN that is for assessment purposes, and that does change quite frequently. In the Cambridge example the URN of 130610 also includes 130612 from when it merged with Huntingdonshire Regional College in 2017. My gut instinct is that HE/FE colleges should use the infobox schools, and the UKPRN should be integrated into the template but I am not quite sure where it should link. It would only be rendered if {{{ukprn}}} was none blank or {{{schooltype}}} contains further education'. North Kent College has pretensions and the infobox university adds little of value. MidKent College (where I know some staff) has no infobox at all, and it is the first thing I would need to create if I wanted to improve it. ClemRutter (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi ClemRutter, hmmm URN ownership is of question, I think it is jointly owned by DfE and Ofsted. Perhaps the purpose of URN has changed to what you're describing, however independent schools and Welsh schools have URN's and they aren't inspected by Ofsted. I think it is best and makes sense to keep URN linked to DfE as Ofsted which appears below it is already linked. So we use Infobox school for FE and HE? Universities do have URN's, but then what about Infobox university? Perhaps the URN parameter should be replicated across? I think a discussion is needed on this at the WikiProject? Regarding dfeno, that was unsupported in the UK infobox, but it was kept in articles as I favoured removal and you wanted it kept, so there was no consensus on what to do with this parameter. We did say during the merge it was to be discussed after-merge which is what we'll do. However, Infobox school requires a substantial cleanup and there's already a section titled "Infobox school cleanup". I think it's best if this is done first so it's out of the way. Any chance you could add some comments, you just have to add a comment under each bullet point of whether you support or not, mainly the merge and delete completely sections - if you have any parameters, you can add to the relevant list. Already posted at WikiProject but doesn't look like anyone is interested. Also, have a look at this school out, it was changed to Infobox school in 2015 but type and URN (to old EduBase) was added using a free label! haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Need Help to Verify Wikipedia Guidelines for an article about TV miniseries (lakhon) with more than 1 version.
[edit]Hi how are you? I need your help please. I recently searched for information on ' สารวัตรใหญ่'. The knowledge graph for this topic appeared to be 2019 miniseries, but the article said 'it's a novel'. When I looked further down in the actors section, I found a list of actors from the current 2019 version and 1994 version mix together. It was a big mess. So I investigated further to find that the reason is because in Thai Wiki they only have 1 article for the subject ' สารวัตรใหญ่'. They combined the novel, and the 2 versions of made for TV miniseries into 1 confusing article.
So I went ahead and did some research and wrote 2 new articles with new information and reliable sources for the 2 versions of TV miniseries. I also consulted Wikipedia guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television on the style to present it. Unfortunately, the admin Sry85 did not agree with me and deleted both of the articles, including the disambiguation page I've created for ' สารวัตรใหญ่' which has 4 entries namely the 2 version remakes, the novel and rank for Thai Police. When I argued that it's vitally important for Wikipedia to have correct information because google look to wikipedia for information such as this to display in the search result. The admin replied and I quote "กูเกิลเป็นการเสิร์ชเบื้องต้นที่ใช้อัลกอรึทึมการค้นหา ซึ่งบางครั้งก็ผิดพลาด พลาดครั้งก็ตรง" translation: Google is a preliminary basic search algorithm that sometimes provide incorrect search results and sometimes provide correct results.
Can you believe he said this? Doesn't he know? that because admin like him provide incorrect wikipedia content (and prevent people like me to provide correct content with reliable sources), the knowledge graph and search result all turn into a big mess.
Without actually even read the article I wrote, he claimed my article has only 2 references and not good enough when in fact it has a few more. Until I told him that I saved the wikicodes to basically proof that he lied that his tone change. He told me he may allow the idea but ask for me to go back and write the article over again. I mean it took me no less then 10 hours to research and to finish the articles. And he wanted to start over again? why not undo delete? I have a day job, I write wiki articles on my weekends and freetime. I have no gain from this except happiness knowing I play a part in providing best contents for the ultimate benefit of wiki users.
I told him what's been done incorrectly in the past under his watch can be fixed to follow wikipedia guideline, but lets begin doing it the right way now. He refuse to listen to my reasons.
What can I do to stop admin who's give wikipedia a bad name and restore justice for all editors in order to provide correct information by following wikipedia standards and guidelines. I want the Thai people to truly enjoy the concept of wikipedia as its intended to be. Please advise
the novel is called . Sarawat Yai (สารวัตรใหญ่)
Novel + 2 Miniseries = th:สารวัตรใหญ่
TV miniseries 1996 - th:สารวัตรใหญ่ (ละครโทรทัศน์ พ.ศ.2537)
TV miniseries 2019 - th:สารวัตรใหญ่ (ละครโทรทัศน์ พ.ศ.2562)
พระยาไทยบันเทิง (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
RfA Vote
[edit]Hi Kudpung. I'm astonished at your recent vote at a current RfA,[1] which seems to me to read that there are circumstances where an individual is beholden to the Wikipedia project. I absolutely reject that premise. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, something people do in their spare time - and different people have different amounts of spare time to give. There is nothing on Wikipedia that is more important than health, family, friends or indeed any other part of real life - and the moment that we start expecting something of people is the moment that we bang the first nail in the coffin of volunteer participation. I spend most of my time in Arbcom, where inactivity is a real problem, but even there we have procedures to accept that people just walk away sometimes.
Now, normally I'd just chalk something like this down to a single voter, and not think any more of it - but given the work we've done together on WP:RFA2011 and other RFA related projects - and especially given this recent comment on WT:RFA[2] (which I agree with), I simply couldn't keep my mouth shut. Voting against someone for an expectation which is against policy (WP:NOTREQUIRED) should be something that we come down on hard, so here I am. WormTT(talk) 13:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why pick on me? Please do your homework before you take my vote out of context. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- See the thread 'Vastly inappropriate shutdown of your voice above.' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why? Because we have a long history and I felt your vote was so out of character. WormTT(talk) 16:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC) EDIT: More than that - I do my best to keep an eye on RfAs when I get a chance, there's little point to 'crats otherwise. I'd still like to see RfA and desysop managed better and I do keep a view to that when I see issues. I told you at the time of RfA2011, that the biggest problem with RfA is the voters, and while people should be able to vote how they like - voting against someone for a reason which is grounded against policy is something I've long wanted to be able to strike for. Votes in a similar vein would be "There are too many admins", or "Refuses to sign up to 2FA" or "Refuses to be open to recall", or even "Self-nominations are prima facae evidence of the power hungry". You remember these votes, and why I felt they were so damaging. I seem to remember a lot of your focus was in similar behaviour in questions. I'm sorry, but being someone I respect comes with the unfortunate side effect of being someone I will call out when I see something I'm not happy with. WormTT(talk) 16:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):::If you knew the history behind that vote, you'd understand perfectly. But I'm not going to explain it here anymore than I was wont to do so at the RfA (maybe I'll explain privately one of the days). One should look at the other reasons too why I voted 'oppose' - the RfA will pass with flying colours in any case - and it's not as if I have spoiled an imacculate run for the bit, which as you know, such voting behaviour disgusts me, but RfA as a process is beyond help - because no one wants to change it. Like the comments section at The Signpost, its one of those places where people are expressly allowed to behave as badly as possible with absolute impunity. Some of them are even stewards and members of Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- "There's more information" isn't really a good enough answer in this case. In the section you mention above, it absolutely was, animosity grows over years and I was never likely to know about it all, I offered myself as a mediator, neither of you took me up, both of you seem to be getting along fine since, so no worries. Here, however, you've made a statement at an RfA which reads as complete and does not imply there is more information. I think, reading between the lines, your vote was more close to "he let me and others down when he promised to do something" and yes, I get that as a reason to vote the way you did. Phrasing it as you did just invited upset. I'll drop this now, there's nothing more to be said. I'm not concerned about the RfA in question, I've long since stopped voting in specific RfAs, it precludes me from other roles, and as you say, your vote is not likely to change anything. What I'm more concerned about is you becoming exactly the sort of voter that I (and if I recall correctly, you) believe exemplifies the problems of the system. Oh, and please don't believe stewards or members of Arbcom are anything special. I can't speak for the stewards, but if you look through the list of Arbcom members past and present, they vary from people I greatly respect to people I ... really don't. If, however, you are referring to me, in particular - I'll remind you that my email is always open and you can be as frank as you like. WormTT(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Give me a break, you're still one of the very few people here whom I totally respect and trust implicitly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- "There's more information" isn't really a good enough answer in this case. In the section you mention above, it absolutely was, animosity grows over years and I was never likely to know about it all, I offered myself as a mediator, neither of you took me up, both of you seem to be getting along fine since, so no worries. Here, however, you've made a statement at an RfA which reads as complete and does not imply there is more information. I think, reading between the lines, your vote was more close to "he let me and others down when he promised to do something" and yes, I get that as a reason to vote the way you did. Phrasing it as you did just invited upset. I'll drop this now, there's nothing more to be said. I'm not concerned about the RfA in question, I've long since stopped voting in specific RfAs, it precludes me from other roles, and as you say, your vote is not likely to change anything. What I'm more concerned about is you becoming exactly the sort of voter that I (and if I recall correctly, you) believe exemplifies the problems of the system. Oh, and please don't believe stewards or members of Arbcom are anything special. I can't speak for the stewards, but if you look through the list of Arbcom members past and present, they vary from people I greatly respect to people I ... really don't. If, however, you are referring to me, in particular - I'll remind you that my email is always open and you can be as frank as you like. WormTT(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):::If you knew the history behind that vote, you'd understand perfectly. But I'm not going to explain it here anymore than I was wont to do so at the RfA (maybe I'll explain privately one of the days). One should look at the other reasons too why I voted 'oppose' - the RfA will pass with flying colours in any case - and it's not as if I have spoiled an imacculate run for the bit, which as you know, such voting behaviour disgusts me, but RfA as a process is beyond help - because no one wants to change it. Like the comments section at The Signpost, its one of those places where people are expressly allowed to behave as badly as possible with absolute impunity. Some of them are even stewards and members of Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why? Because we have a long history and I felt your vote was so out of character. WormTT(talk) 16:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC) EDIT: More than that - I do my best to keep an eye on RfAs when I get a chance, there's little point to 'crats otherwise. I'd still like to see RfA and desysop managed better and I do keep a view to that when I see issues. I told you at the time of RfA2011, that the biggest problem with RfA is the voters, and while people should be able to vote how they like - voting against someone for a reason which is grounded against policy is something I've long wanted to be able to strike for. Votes in a similar vein would be "There are too many admins", or "Refuses to sign up to 2FA" or "Refuses to be open to recall", or even "Self-nominations are prima facae evidence of the power hungry". You remember these votes, and why I felt they were so damaging. I seem to remember a lot of your focus was in similar behaviour in questions. I'm sorry, but being someone I respect comes with the unfortunate side effect of being someone I will call out when I see something I'm not happy with. WormTT(talk) 16:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)