User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2020

Thoughts on this school

Hi Kudpung, Happy New Year and I have a question for you. I've been working substantially on this school in the hopes of getting a DYK in, I then had to expand it more in order to make it a 5x expansion which I have now done, pending current discussion. But would you say I'm ready to take this to GA? Please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do DYK and don't even know how the system works. I realise you've put a lot of work into the article, but it seems to have been padded out with a lot of trivia. Sorry to say, but it's not an article I would take on for GA if I were asked to be the reviewer; notwithstanding, there's nothing to stop you trying, another reviewer might see things differently, and GA standards have certainly become less harsh since my time. For UK school GAs, see a couple I did at HCGS (a state sch.), and Malvern College, a leading independent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)-[reply]

I see, hmmm, I'll see what I can do and the problem with this school is finding sources to expand it, I have reached a dead end in terms of sources online (rest of the sources I've found are just minor events and individual student achievements), checked Google Books but nothing except a mention about it blocking "any sight of the railway line or diesel engine exhaust" and a former students time at the school. Some sections of the WP:WPSCH/AG are omitted as I'm unable to find information for this school/not applicable. I will see if there is anything offline and if someone has access to Newspapers.com if they can check that for me. Thank you for checking this Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation fro German Wikipedia

Hello Kudpung,

I would like to make a request for this article to be translated for the German Wikipedia? I have been making requests to translators on the List of German translators. Have not yet had any replies.

List of graffiti and street art injuries and deaths — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyxyzyz (talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Xyxyzyz, I do not work for the de.Wiki. I would suggest asking someone there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Xyxyzyz: You could do a quick machine translation (Bing Translate, Google Translate ( and post it there as a draft...? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page consists of a large and complex table and all the sources need correctly formatting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that our citation templates are mostly compatible. E.g. de:Vorlage:Cite web uses title not Titel usw. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the sources in List of graffiti and street art injuries and deaths need seriously cleaning up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

translation

Hey, Kudpung! I have some 13th century German I'm trying to get translated for Kifli:

dô brâchten im die pecken

chipfen und weiʒe flecken,

weiʒer dann ein hermelein.

Any chance you'd be able to help, or point me at someone else?

Thanks! --valereee (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee it's either Old High German or Old Middle German and then possibly an Austrian dialect of it. I have a broad understanding of what it means but nothing you could use as a translation. Ask SoWhy. The last line is 'whiter than a hermelin'. A hermelin is a white weasel or stoat, or a white Czech cheese.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --valereee (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's supposed to be MHG, but Jans der Enikel may have written in a quite vernacular way. I really can't figure it out. I suppose "pecken" is a noun, plural, and the subject of the sentence, but who knows. Grimm's dictionary doesn't help much, not for "fleck(en)" either... Drmies (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a poem, so maybe it's playing with words? I find it hilarious that a hermelein is either a weasel or a cheese...I found another sentence, Bereits 1227 überreichten Wiener Bäcker dem Babenberger Herzog Leopold dem Glorreichen bei seinem Einzug in Wien zu Weihnachten eine Tracht „Chipfen“. that was machine translated to indicate that Duke Leopold moved to Vienna at Christmas, wearing a “chipfen” costume. Hm. He was dressed as a croissant? --valereee (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a guess, but the Swedish for boy is pojke; 'the boy' is pojken; the girl is flicken. --Izno (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Moonraker for (any) idiomatic translations. [1] - Vanillekipferl are traditional and still popular Christmas cookies, I'd guess the flecken is another one, perhaps made from eggwhite. Happy 2020 (musical card, and good for the year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three of my articles

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you'd try to expand and improve articles, rather than just eagerly tagging them using the page curation tool. You tagged three of my articles, questioning if they pass notability. Consider looking them up online before you just assume they are non-notable. I don't even remember the last time I had one of my articles proposed for deletion, let alone tagged for notability. I do my research to ensure the subjects pass GNG and can be expanded. Thanks Missvain (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain, no, that's not my job and please don't tell me what to do. Besides which, you've been around more than long enough to know exactly how to create articles. Indeed, my memory is excellent and tells me you are an experienced user and quite capable of doing that work yourself. One of the reasons your other articles probably get through NPP without being tagged or slated for deletion is that they look perfect and are not more closely examined examined by less experienced patrollers. I don't regularly patrol pages nowadays, but I wrote the book on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that is an extraordinary response. I would consider all the articles you tagged should have gone to AFD. And *I* have been here since 2005 and consider myself to be very experienced. This is increasingly looking like wikistalking. I suggest you might want to consider taking a step back from what you are doing. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sound like a classsic lack of AGF. I came across these edits in a single session of NPP, something I rarely do do nowadays. PROD is a much safer solution for the creator and much less burden on the community. The editor turned out to be not only highly experienced - over 1,000 articles created since 2006, an admin, and a former WMF employee. I would have expected better. You registred an account in 2016 in which year you made 3 edits and did not make a single edit until 3 years later . If you have other, older accounts, please declare them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are well known. They are: User:Ta bu shi da yu, User:Tbsdy lives and User:Letsbefiends. I have already explained that you have not been following the spirit of PROD, and it is absolutely “your job” to check for notability before you tag an article. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help

= I Don't know you can help or not but I believe that honesty exists in many people, so I dare to ask help. Can you help to reopen the article, Zarb-e-Sukhan of Ehsan Sehgal which was dishonestly removed, while it had multiple authentic sources, even though, ill motives contributors removed that unfairly. I found it on Google search - https://en.wikiredia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zarb-e-Sukhan. Please save Wikipedia from such ones. Thanks. More links - https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Zarb_e_Sukhan.html?id=4EefUUpSomMC&redir_esc=y

1- https://www.conservapedia.com/Zarb-e-Sukhan 2 - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41438543-zarb-e-sukhan 3 - why wikipedia removed this article of notable person while it has multiple authentic sources, another encyclopedia has that. And also in the book, hundrends of reviews of the scholars and academics from around the world are included, no one any other book has that, is it not the ill-motives of bad contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.208.220 (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather a complex issue. First off, as clearly stated, I don't generally reply to unsigned requests, and much less to those of unsigned IP users (as far as I know , there is nothing that prevents users in Karachi from registering an account) because it makes it practically and technically impossible to communicate with you. You will need to discuss the AfD with the non-admin closer, Störm (formerly user:Greenbörg), who contrary to the claim on his user page, is not on Wikileave. You may also wish to get input from RoySmith, an admin, who apparently shed some light on the confusion. For my part however, that's as far as I will get involved. The actual AfD seems to have been illegally redirected to an external, 3rd party Wikipedia mirror. Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct link to the AfD. My take on this is that there was nothing wrong with the AfD, so it was deleted (well, redirected) properly. Be that as it may, our standard practice is that anybody can write a new article on this subject, provided they address the issues raised at the AfD. In this case, the consensus was that the book failed to meet our notability guidelines listed at WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. So, if you want to write a new article about Zarb-e-Sukhan, you're free to go ahead and do so, as long as you include appropriate sources that meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NBOOK. I do note that this book was apparently self-published. Technically, that's not a disqualifier for having an article about it, but as a practical matter, I think you'll find it difficult to convince your fellow editors that a self-published book is notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RoySmith, and Kudpung, for your reply and suggestions. As a team of journalists from Pak, we decide to add sources that are available and improve the article, even though, none of us has the experience, everyone does on its way, so do not confuse. We need help from experienced ones. As a fact, in this part of the world, each book is published under academic and literary organizations and none of those are famous as in the West, we do not recognize term self-publish. As far as, Zarb-Sukhan was published under various literary organizations, as mentioned in the book itself, having hundreds of reviews by Pakistani and Indian scholars and academics around the world, which are also mentioned in the book itself, and also several reviews on Zarb-e-Sukhan in big newspapers, and also reviews of other books that are included in this book, we are very junior journalists, never met with the author of the book. We do not know the rules, nor we stay here. We do not want to reveal our investigation, I hope you understand, and we try to summit again the same article, within your helping so that such ones abide to spoil articles on Wikipedia. You will notice differential in comments because of a team, the purpose is fairness and honesty. Sorry for our English language, and thanks once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.208.220 (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 - https://www.conservapedia.com/Zarb-e-Sukhan

2 - https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=4EefUUpSomMC&dq=ehsan+sehgal.&source=gbs_navlinks_s

3 - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41438543-zarb-e-sukhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.208.220 (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews

= best for learning - we are surprised that when your rules verify the book that has more than one authentic sources, how was possible, it redirected or removed. There are a few academic books in which scholars wrote reviews as well, we cannot believe such a blunder happened here and no one took it seriously.

The most authentic scholars and academics reviewing Ehsan Sehgal both books - at Karachi Press Club - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otzNVwtzhpU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.208.220 (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment over on ANI, but can you just disengage and apologise to Chris and Missvain for getting a little heated with them? They both seem look like good editors who are very much here to write or improve the encyclopedia. I don't think firing a blunderbuss at either is going to do any good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, Perhaps if you were to do your homework -like nobody elese has bothered to do - you will understand that there is a very serious issue behind all this, and I have been trying to save the face of two editors here. All I get is threats from rogue stewrds, GW who still can't keep her nose out of anything that concerns me, and now you. I have never once abused my tools or the trust vested in me by the community. I am getting severely pissed off with Wikipedia. I woud have contaced Arbcom over this issue and the backstory, but they can't be trusted either.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Rschen7754 as a "rogue steward", yes I've quarrelled with him several times; but equally we have done good work together such as working on Dartford Crossing and making it one of the better articles we have on British highway transport, and he does unpleasant steward work that I don't want to do. He's not a net negative on the project, and I don't believe I have ever suggested he was or is. Elsewhere, you'll have seen me banging heads with Fram more than a few times, including one trip to Arbcom, but I think he's got better since "Framgate" last summer and indeed would not be averse towards Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 3 (I recused on Fram 2). Or, you'll notice a longstanding feud between myself and RHaworth has now spilled over to Arbcom, but I had a lengthy real-life chat in the Pendrel's Oak with him about Irish politics and transport (particularly on the topic of the UK / Ireland border and infrastructure such as the Senator George Mitchell Peace Bridge), and we made peace with each other and enjoyed our chat. Anyway, the bottom line is that other editors you don't see eye to eye with are not out to get you, and if you assume this, the project will get along more smoothly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) @Ritchie333: No, it was Ajraddatz. ——SN 54129 12:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm not a steward anymore, though I do sometimes help in areas that don't require the tools (such as m:AAR). But it was Ajraddatz that was the steward in question. --Rs chen 7754 19:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Kudpung, I legitimately have to ask: Do you believe that you are always right, and that nobody can raise concerns about your editing/conduct/methods of interacting with other editors to you? This is a really dangerous position to be in, not just on Wikipedia, but in life. And that's not some vague threat, it's a summation of the fact that we all have blind spots and we don't know everything. And my "vendetta"? I do not support administrators making vague threats. I support civility from all editors, including administrators. I don't enjoy editors that I work with and who have good intentions getting bullied and threatened. I believe that all administrators should be accountable and reply civilly and introspectively to legitimate concerns raised about whatever they do on Wikipedia. I have stood for these principles as a steward/administrator. That is my agenda. --Rs chen 7754 19:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned you anywhere, Rschen7754, so you can take your threats and PA elsewhere - I suppose you know what your username means in German? I expect better from stewards. Your comment here is extraneous - the Arbcom case is thataway. Go bully someone else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Case Request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Kudpung and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks. It's a great shame that the editor concerned was ever allowed to return, his history - one of dishonesty, bullying, emotional blackmail, and general pointyness - is appalling. If Arbcom accept the case against you without looking at his whole history (including undeleting the usertalk pages) then they have lost their collective mind. DuncanHill (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC advice

Hi Kudpung. I've noticed a bunch of AfC approvals made by a sock. Consensus at COIN seems to be lots of them need to be returned to AfC for re-review. Is there a regular process for this, e.g. a templated message to send to the article creators? I was thinking of something like this:

An article you recently created, article title, was incorrectly accepted at WP:Articles for creation and will need to be resubmitted.

Your advice is appreciated. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Received your email, thanks. I'll be adapting the text in User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bri, no, we don't need an RfC to enable the content model that you're envisioning. Feel free to mail me for suggestions on how I can help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zarb-e-Sukhan (Kulliyaat) for review

Dear sir, I created with my team, Zarb-e-Sukhan (Kulliyaat), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zarb-e-Sukhan_(Kulliyaat) please help to review and move to main article place and I request with my team to save this rom il-motivies ones. Thank. Mediateamnews (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mediateamnews, please read the instructions on the draft page and submit your draft for review at AfC. Please note that a review matytake several weeks. Good luck! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 04:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The workshop phase will end in about 24 hours. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bewdley School

Just letting you know that I left a comment on the talk page of the Bewdley School. Just letting you know here as a curtosoy, as I know the ping system is not always the best. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LakesideMiners, the ping system works fine. But thanks for the courtesy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thankyou for providing the info requested! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Dr.B 🙂 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]