User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jun 2010

Elgar again

Following your helpful comments on my earlier additions to the article on Edward Elgar, I wonder if you might be inclined to contribute to the peer review for which I have just put the article forward. Any contributions will be most gratefully received. – Tim riley (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Tim, the comment I made was purely on a technicality of MOS. Apart from the facts that I had to learn some of Elgar works at an early age and that I come from Malvern, my interest in the Wikipedia article is mainly due to it's being with the scope of the WP:WORCS which I manage. Brianboulton is far more qualified than I to make a peer review of this article, and his comments are excellent. The prose of the article is superb and has just the right measure of formality for a page of this nature. According to MOS, The lead section must also have inline refs. I have fixed a few naked URLs. As this is strictly a British article, there may be some consensus for displaying the source retrieval dates in D-M-Y format, however, I have been criticised in the past for insisting on British English in articles about Britain and British people by British contributors, so to avoid any disruptive editing from anyone, I strongly suggest you obtain a second opinion. Although I feel you have something that may well be FA material, is there any particular reason why you don't try for GA first?--Kudpung (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My practice in British articles is always to use UK date format. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Silvers, I don't recall ever suggesting you don't. An editor asked my opinion on anything he might have missed while cleaning up an article for a possible FA nom, and I pointed out that there are some date formats that might not be British. I'm not personally concerned with the article but I did jump in on the fly with a couple of uncontentious minor tweaks. I left the date formats as they were to avoid any conflict and to let the major contributor(s) decide for themselves.--Kudpung (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I'm just supporting your idea that D-M-Y format is correct for Brit articles. Indeed, I think the MOS says so. I did not intend to criticize anything you did, quite the contrary. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your new comments on my talk page. I am truly grateful for your interest and help. I've checked out the You Tube and Alt Text guidelines - the latter very helpful, the former leaving me a bit unsure of the proprieties in the case of that old Elgar film. But I struggle with your point that the lead should be fully referenced just like main bodies of texts. I can't remember seeing any front page articles where this is so. Certainly in today's (Mycena haematopus) and its three predecessors it isn't. There is one (rather strangely numbered) footnote (in Loihi Seamount) between all four of them. Has there, perhaps, been a change in policy across the years? - Tim riley (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

From WP:LS : The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. (The bold type is mine). See also Malvern, Worcestershire, for example, a GA that I contributed to. I hope this helps Tim.--Kudpung (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again I must thank you for your most encouraging and helpful contributions. If I can ever reciprocate on any article you'd like to be checked I shall be at your service. - Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if ther requirement for references in the lead may be slightly more flexible than I thought. See this: WP:LEADCITE - another perfect example however where because different bits of policy are written by different groups of editors, they sometimes seem confusing, or even be contradictory at times.--Kudpung (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Côte-Rôtie AOC

Having just (supra) asked for your help on Elgar, I now, by sheer coincidence, find myself disagreeing with you on the talk page of this article. At your service to discuss points that you think need improving. - Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My own style of prose for the encyclopedia tends to be slightly more formal that the langauge used in the XXX for Dummies books. However, as it is far from my intention to impose my style on others, do feel free to remove the tags - I won't start an edit war over it. There are nevertheless however some areas that indeed read like the author's own impressions. This may of course be entirely unitentional, but as they currently stand they probably need either rewording, or sourcing to avoid WP:OR or WP:POV - perhaps from the same books that have been used, but I do not have access to them. You might like to make any further comment on the article's talk page where I feel it would be more helpful to othesr who may wish to comment.--Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this steer. I shall revisit accordingly and add additional references where needed. Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your later comments on my talk page noted and gratefully received. That's most accommodating of you. I hope my changes will meet with your approval in due course. Tim riley (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung, I've now taken a look at the Côte-Rôtie "wikilinking dispute", and replied at Talk:Côte-Rôtie AOC. I'm sorry it took me a couple of days to get around to doing this. It is definitely true that Wikipedia (and in particular this language version) has a tendency to sometimes cause irritation and involve "harsh words", although I honestly haven't seen too much of the latter in this case. I've come to known all three of you as very constructive editors in the Wine Project - Agne as the all-round force behind much of the project, Stefan as a bit of Australia and a bit of all-round, and you as the Rhône contributor par excellence (nice to hear that you've appreciated my encouragement...), so I'm very sorry to see disagreement between such editors. While not any real edit-warring took place, and the exchange of views remained at a "moderate level" compared to some other disputes we've had, I notice that you got quite frustrated about it all. I can only say that I have also taken longer and shorter breaks from this project, and from this language version in its entirety when I've felt like it, and I have not always planned to come back at the times when I've left. In short, I would like to welcome you back to editing Rhône-related and other wine articles, whenever that is (and I don't mind it being sooner rather than later). And I've understand that in the meantime, there are also other strings on your Wikipedia lute. Take care, Tomas e (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Review - Wellingborough

Just like to let you know that Wellingborough is being reviewed from today for GA. Likelife (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm rather busy in real life at the moment but I'll try to hang in there and address any suggestions the reviewer makes, if I can.--Kudpung (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very learned person and interested in languages and cultures so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA Oppose

I'm not going to challenge your oppose here at all, but I replied there asking what article got deleted at AfD (because I can't find it) and which article is unsourced (I can't find that either). I'd like to know so that I can fix the unsourced article. Thanks NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, NativeForeigner. Your message comes because I'm one of the few RfA voters who takes the trouble to explain why I support, oppose, or remain neutral;) I don't really want to do the same researches all over again, but if you are an aspiring sysop candidate, you will already know how to find them. I use toolserver. You might not have been the creator of the article that got AfD, but you will have contributed to it; the generic AfD warning is on your talk page. The unreferenced article has two notes but not verifiable sources, and no inline references in compliance with WP:V and WP:CITE. You've only created four short articles up til now so it shouldn't be too hard to locate. I think the rest of my reason for opposing is quite self explanatory and I hope it has been of help - challenging votes on an RfA is not a good idea anyway - if the 'Crats are doing their job properly, they look at the votes as a guideline and rather than as a score - in much the same way as we reach a consensus on anything, they will do their own research and decide how they close the application. FWIW I try to put myself in the position of a candidate for RfA when I vote - you can look at my user page - I wouldn't even support myself for RfA! It's early days yet and your RfA may well succeed in spite of my oppose. However, if it were to fail, you can be sure that the next time round, you will find in me a strong supporter :) --Kudpung (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Challenging opposes is quite blatantly stupid. Thanks for the time. I've identified the articles in question, and am now aware what you are talking about. I didn't even know You Are There got expanded so much, I'll have to go and clean it up. Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A good tip is to keep all articles and talk pages you have ever contributed to on your watch list, and check your watchlist at least once a day or even RSS feed it. You can adjust your user settings to automaticaly put every page you edit on your watchlist. The watchlist, although IMO probably the most important tool for regular editors, is often the most ignoreed.--Kudpung (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Brontë

Hi Keith. I have translated, edited, and created the page Arthur Bell Nicholls (Charlotte's husband). It still needs cats, a good proofread, and the translation tpl putting on the talk page as per © requirements. If you have time, could you please check it over. I have put some project banners on the talk page, but if they are the wrong ones, please change them.

I think it's time to move the main Brontë article translation from my user space to mainspace. Shall I be bold and just do this? I don't think we need to conserve all our editing talk or the history of the translation's development.--Kudpung (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it. I have greatly edited stuff out and started creating some main articles from it with more to come. See Talk:Brontë, Arthur Bell Nicholls, and Cowan Bridge School. The next new page to follow is Patrick Brontë.--Kudpung (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I just spotted the Brontë article, and have removed the duplicate end sections. I notice there is 2 different ISBNs for Barker, Juliet R. V. (1995). The Brontës. London: Phoenix House. One in the Bibliography section & the other in the Further reading. I am unsure what the difference is or which one was used for the page numbers in the article. Keith D (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem comes from the French article. The inline citations do not give an ISBN but refer to Barker (1995). Two editions are listed in the biliography as:

• (en) Juliet Barker, The Brontës, St. Martin's Press, 1996 (ISBN ISBN 0-312-14555-1).
• (en) Juliet Barker, The Brontës, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, puis Phœnix Giants, Londres, 1995, 1002 p. (ISBN 978-1857990690).

Thus I assume that the Frebnch ediors used the ISBN 978-1857990690 version. Unless we have access to both versions of the print media, there is no way of knowing for sure. --Kudpung (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that in that case we just remove the one from the further reading section as it just confuses things. Keith D (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Keith D (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Kudpung (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wellingborough

Hi, I did the changes to the article as you suggested and I think it flows better, doesn't look so bitty. Can't help with Demography or Landmarks though, sorry. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. It really does look better. There's nothng more that I can do to improve the article either. We'll have to sit back and wait for the reviewer's verdict. --Kudpung (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, shuffling is easy, finding the info is much harder, sorry I can't do more.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

By the way, I fixed an error in your edit notice. [1] Please revert if it was supposed to be like that, though. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 07:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks

Hi Kudpung. WP:NPA says " Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". I've ignored your wikihounding [2] [3] up to now, but this and this clearly cross a line. Please refactor these edits immediately and do not launch any further personal attacks.--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks, just statements of fact concerning the clear pattern of your method of conducting dialogues with other editors. No one has stooped to the level, for example, of accusing you of being a hazard to the encyclopedia because of your age, your health, and your typing skills. Three serious, mature, regular editors all have a right to discuss how best to help editors who have problems understanding the rules and guidelines - that's the way it works here, and we're here to help.--Kudpung (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit to Received Pronunciation

Hi Kudpung, greetings from the UK! I just wanted to sound you out about this edit. All I want you to know is that if you see the nature of the immediate edits prior to mine, you'll see a line of IPs deleting information without explanation and commentary posted by a red-link username. I assumed the whole thing to be a series of non-constructive contributions and that is why I reverted to the particular revision that I did. Now because of your own decent editing background and your edit summary, I'm taking your point at your word (without checking the talk history). Just to clear up, I thought I was battling vandals. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you'll see that I put a warning template on user Shannon4Toby's talk page on 17 June already. Whether they were intended or not, his/her edits were not constructive. Somehow in the confusion the good material got removed. No worries.--Kudpung (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you Kudpung - I did spot your Level 1 warning administered to this clown user. I couldn't figure out however why you didn't remove the material; but the IP did, and when the IP did so, he/she took out the other material that it now emerges was correct to be removed, but less any kind of summary, so it all looked like vandalism. All sorted now anyhow. By the way, I did leave you a note in the talk page of the subject concerning your own register! Nothing drastic or deadly serious, but when you get time, have a look. Sleep well as it's approaching 1am in Thaliand. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What is, or what is not RP, is IMHO subjective. The general modern tendency, I believe, is to consider all standard English non regional accents as RP. That would probably be correct. It is also correct however, to assert that there are several different versions of RP. They range from the whining nasal tones of the lazy rich that we are familiar with from the pre war generations of the 20th century, and also typified by the accents of the wartime RAF pilots and Army officers unwittingly caricatured in movies of, and about the times, to the unaffected and clearly pronounced language of most of today's reasonably educated school kids. The war and the rest of the 20th century had a great levelling effect on the British 'caste' system and the RP that is spoken by the generations of my children and my grand-children is to my ears at least, devoid of anything, including any 'posh' tones. Like our Malvern water, it contains absolutely nothing! This is exemplified by today's BBC news anchors and presenters such as Stephen Sackur, Tim Sebastian, Nik Gowing, George Alagiah, Trevor McDonald, Peter Dobbie,Jonathan Charles, Mishal Husain, and Mike Embley, who represent the accents of most of the BBC news staff, leaving us with the question: Which BBC presenters do not speak RP? This busts the myth that the BBC introduced people with broad regional accents in an attempt to tone down its 'posh-speaker' image. Strong regional accents are hardly heard on English TV, and even the the dialects used on the traditional soaps (Eastenders & Coronation St) have become very much diluted when compared with the speech used in the days of Ena Sharples and Martha Longhurst. One of the best examples of parody of British English was throughout the entire Monty Pyhron - already over 40 years ago. --Kudpung (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wellingborough

Hi Kudpung, Thanks for your note. Progress seems to have stalled completely since your and J3Mrs' recent edits. However, as you stated, it is quite close to being a GA and I think I can fix most of the problems myself (in some cases I suggested a way of fixing them in the /GA1 page). I will try and fix things and close the review (as a pass) before the end of the weekend, otherwise the nomination will just sit there stalled. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was just a generic message to all contributors in an attempt to get them to rally round. The major editor and nominator has not been responding lately and is probably busy in real life.It would be great if you could make the required minor fixes as I can't see what else I can do, and I need to check over four articles I'm going to nominate this week for GA review from aproject I manage. Do take a look if you are interested, the articles are quite short but very clean:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire/Archive 1#Good Article nominations. The school one has already been peer reviewed. Thanks again for all your help.--Kudpung (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got another reviews underway, but I could probably fit a short one in Monday/Tuesday, etc. Pyrotec (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wellingborough

The article Wellingborough you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wellingborough for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well its officially passed, thanks for all the help with this article, now lets see what else can make it. I also apologize for the lack of input over the last weeks, I been rather busy.

Likelife (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing

Hello Kudpung and congratulations on getting Wellingborough to GA status. I haven't done any reviewing and rarely comment on anything. I just like writing really. I noticed Wellingborough in the GAN list when one of mine was there. I don't think I did much, just a bit of cosmetic shuffling, the hard bit is finding the content and referencing it. I would be hopeless as a reviewer but best of luck, though I'm sure you won't need it.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well none in the queue at the mo thank goodness, I can't bear the tension! Too much like getting homework marked. If you look on my User page they're in significant contributions. I'm working with others on Horwich and Rivington in my butterfly way, leaving the hard bits until last!--J3Mrs (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If I get time I'll dip in.--Kudpung (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)