User talk:Kudpung/Archive Oct 2010

Finnhorse terror!!

If you're still up for a major c/e task, Finnhorse now contains almost everything it will, or at least any large additions aren't probably carried out anymore. Pitke (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's looking very good already. A lot of well known experienced Wikipedians have contributed. Perhaps you should consider nominating it for GA;--Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I'm so glad to hear that :) Apparently Dana boomer is having a GA look on it someday soon. Pitke (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dana eh? She already reviewed one of my GAs and passed it. One thing you can be sure of, is when she has finished with it and passed it, it will be almost FA quality. She doesn't miss a trick, and most importantly, she chips in and helps with the editing. She's also now an admin and I voted for her on her RfA. Good luck! --Kudpung (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

I think it works in reverse too, I checked your contributions and you have a lot of time adding tags, but not improving articles... So please instead of just shaming articles, you spend time improving them.... --90.213.158.60 (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because I spend an hour or so per day checking new pages. However, a genuine close look at my edits will see that I do in fact do the very contrary of what you suggest. Generally, the pages I don't feel obliged to improve are the ones the creators left in a mess. The vast majority of my edits are in articles I created myself, translations from other languages, and contributions to discussions on Wikipedia policy development and improvement - precisely 84.76%. Tagging accounts for only 15.24%, and less than half of these tags have anything to do with the maintenance of articles in need of attention or deletion. I suggest you spend some time reviewing the edit counts of the real drive-by artists, many of whom I actually revert. If you are genuinely concerned, and I think you are, perhaps you would like to help out on some of these thankless maintenenace tasks.--Kudpung (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

GM6001

re.: 06:23, 4 October 2010 Kudpung I added some more words relevant to the descriptive backgd. and a conjecture about the evolving environment; never the less... Letter boxes seem to be a more than less of pay as you go proposition but many entries are designed with Wikipedia collaborative input to back-link here as ec:3.4.24.83. Here in this enzyme-related article is a stub Category:EC 3.4.24 where thinking it would redirect from Category:Enzymes internally is a paradoxical property of GM6001 more or less about missing any parameters non-implemented mentioned, in references to the GM6001 page the way it is derived and not self-engineered while not giving that appearance (ACS membership etc.) though, by that MCB pages style listed on my user: page userbox Molecular & Cellular Biology WikiProject could be than derived a more polished final product, potentially never the less is a valid contribution.Emissrto (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I never doubted for a moment that it is a valid contribution to the encyclopedia; I just pointed out that the article does not provide any indication about what it is, and any scientific jargon is over my head, and that of most of our readers. Please see WP:jargon. Perhaps you could start the article with something like: X is an enzyme that...' regards, --Kudpung (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP: Northants

Hi Kudpung just to let you know some Northamptonshire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release (which I never herd of until today) which can be seen here. It just advises to make some Northants articles better and I'm currently working on Northamptonshire which is coming along nicely, best Likelife (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, so have a bunch of Worcs ones that I'm working through. When I'm done I'll chip in. Deadline is 10 October. --Kudpung (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN for Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)

Hello. In case you didn't notice, the GAN process was started for the article Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio). It can be found here. I would appreciate any comments you can make in addition to what is already there. In particular, there is question on whether mentioning the school colors in the lead is excess detail. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jon. For some reason I had indeed missed the GAN, and it was picked up very quickly by another reviewer. Never mind. I have gone through his/her initial summary and concur on the points they have highlighted. I actually feel the lead section to be too long in several aspects, including the colours. I also think that the main body of the article goes into far more detail than is strictly necessary for a school article. However, it does reflect thorough research on your part and there is generally no harm i leaving it in, and as long as it meets the citeria for prose and sources, that's fine. It's worth considering however whether or not such precise detail such as on all the courses offered, and the bell times, are necessary, but that's up to you and the reviewer. The only single real disadvantage is that the bigger an article gets, the more it is exposed for things to rectify, and links to checks. An example of a school GA that passed at GA without a single correction being required is at Malvern College (college in BE generally means high school, not university). It's probably the bare minimum in scope for a school GA, but it demonstrates that size isn't everything. If you need some help meeting the reviewer's requirements or seriously rewording longer passages of text, don't hesitate to let me know, otherwise, I don't generally barge in when the main article developer(s) and the reviewer have already entered into a close relationship. A few more tweaks and your article most certainly will pass even the most severe reviewer's assessment. I hope this helps. BTW, I've left a note on the article talk page about FUr for school logos. --Kudpung (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, I didn't list all the classes (there are about 200); I mentioned what I felt were noteworthy and different, (i.e. the electives), which is what the school guidelines encourage. Most of the high school articles I had to go by were pretty bare in terms of what kind of classes were available or even somewhat unique. I also saw comments from international readers that were unfamiliar with the entire structure and curriculum of an American high school. Even the FA articles of high schools (there aren't many) seem far more focused on athletics or extracurriculuar accomplishments and awards than on what kinds of courses are available. The "bell schedule" actually was directly borrowed from Plano Senior High School, though I'll be the first to say that article shouldn't be THE standard since it got FA way back in 2006 and FA standards have come a ways since then.

I'm not concerned about an article being big for the sake of being big, I'm concerned about it being thorough and very few school articles are thorough. About the closest FA I can find is Amador Valley High School, which is about the same size as the Roosevelt article (actually slightly larger). While it has a much smaller academics section, it has a much larger extracurriculuar section (note it also includes the general day schedule). In many ways it's simply organized differently (like arts are listed at that article as part of extracurricular activities while I listed them at Roosevelt as part of the curriculum). AVHS also does not have a campus or facilities section, while Plano Senior High School has it as part of the history section. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

All quite true, which I haven't criticised, only pointed out as you suggested. I just made the suggestions from my point of view as someone who works on and writes hundreds of school articles here. There are no fundamental differences between UK and USA schools. Any differences are generally in the national curricula and the kind of university entrance exams. (and perhaps the fact that the Uk is one f the last western style countries to insist that all pupils wear school uniform - and beacuase of this, 'colours' is indeed a very well known term in the UK). What makes school articles different is the ammount of focus depending on how much can be written on each a school. Hanley Castle High School, for example, has a long history section because the school is 700 years old. A modern neighbourhood schjol built in 2005 won't have any history to report. There may be some truth in the idea that US schoos place more emphsis on sport than in the UK, but Malvern College for example has spwaned may of the greatest cricketers ever. For the article I work on, I te,nd deliberately to leave aout any cnted that readers would be better off getting from the school brochure. Courses and schedules tend to get changed frequently, whereas in my experience, many Wikipedia editors rarely go back and constantly update articles - but they are probably the SUAs.--Kudpung (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh absolutely; school articles, like city articles, are going to vary greatly simply due to size and age. In terms of updating articles, every article has to deal with that to some degree; the best articles are the ones who have dedicated editors who keep it up-to-date. Since school articles have enrollment data, that pretty much guarantees updates almost every year, though in all honesty they aren't necessary. Unless there has been a drastic change in a school, very little changes year-to-year, even enrollment (they could stand to be updated every few years and still be pretty accurate). The course selections have been pretty stable at least in the last 10+ years at Roosevelt, which is why I included them, though I tried to be more general in describing them where I could. Much of the data I chose to leave out seemed more unstable or temporary. While there is a website, the school's online course registration guide gives far more detail than is on the article (the printed Roosevelt course catalog is 132 pages long), so I was pretty happy it got summarized into several paragraphs! :) I think the reason athletics tend to get more emphasis in the US school articles is simply because they are the most visible aspects; there are tons of outside sources on high school athletics, mostly the local paper. That said, another reason is that most editors don't know where to go for academic info or aren't interested in that aspect (sports can be way more exciting!), so it just gets neglected. Indeed, the Roosevelt article's Academics section previously was a short paragraph while Athletics at one point had several subheadings. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In the UK there is far less cultural emphasis of playing ball sports for one's school or university - not even soccer, which is of the course the UK national sport. --Kudpung (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourne Westfield Primary School

Hi Kudpung. As you will see, I've tried to go along with the decision to merge, and have carefully merged the school article into the Bourne, Lincolnshire article. However if you look at my comments on the talkpages of both articles, you'll see that there's a problem. Firstly, the Bourne article was already too full up, and secondly that overload puts all the newly merged material at risk of instant deletion by the Bourne article's regular editors. Due to this situation, I have also userfied the whole article into Brunnian's userspace so that something may be retrievable if the school article gets entirely deleted from mainspace.

It has been suggested to me that I do a deletion review, but the instructions on that page tell me that I must discuss it with you first. Sorry to bother you with this, but I hope we can sort this out quickly. What worries me is that the decision to merge doesn't fit the consensus in the final section of the original discussion. Two said merge, two said keep, and I intended to say, well if you must delete then I'll have to accept merge. But ideally (as in my previous comment on that page) I wanted to keep since I was editing the thing. Perhaps I was trying too hard to be polite and keep the peace, and my wording was misleading?

Either way, the merge isn't going to work. Even if I had cut the article right down to the paragraph on the archaeological site only, it would still have been unacceptable in an already overloaded Bourne article. The merge also unbalances the Bourne article, because if we added even a small paragraph on each Bourne school to balance the new merged content, the overloaded Bourne article could not bear it. --Storye book (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

HI Storye book. Our policies, instructions, and guidelines can at times be complex, hard to interpret. and even daunting. Indeed, you do not need at all to take this matter up with me. The instructions at deletion review clearly state that any issues that you consider unresolved or incorrectly judged, should be dscussed with the closing administrator. However, although you are an established an experienced editor, I'll try here to explain in simpler terms how some of these processes work, because it might be one of the first times that you have been involved with a slightly more contentious issue. For ease of reference, do follow any wikilinks I have provided in this message.

The closing administrator is neutral and has not taken part in the deletion debate, and whose closing rationale is expected to be objective. This is born out by the fact that admins will often even make a close that is contrary to their own feelings, or not how they would have voted themselves in the discussion. Their task is simply to weigh up the facts and arguments that have been presented, and measure where the consensus lies at the end of the seven days (or relisting). Contrary to what some believe, Wikipedia debates are never (or should never be) entirely concluded on the basis of a tally of the keep, delete, merge, support, or oppose !votes (and I expect you've often wondered why every time Wikipedians write the word vote, they precede it with an exclamation mark: !). The closer will have carefully read all the comments, reviewed the article in great detail, verified that all the sourced references are appropriate and conform exactly to the rules, and that the article is of a sufficiently serious and appropriate nature to be included in any encyclopedia.

I nominated the article for WP:AfD because I had sufficient reason to believe that it did not, or would not be able to comply with our policy on the notability of primary schools, but also in the knowledge that an AfD will often stimulate a concentrated effort to rescue the article. I could have flagged the article with a Speedy Deletion request or a time delayed Proposal for Deletion; instead however, I preferred to offer it for debate by the broader community. This was not an ad hoc decision - contrary to much of the flagging and tagging of articles that is often done by less specialised editors, schools articles are one of my main areas of participation in the Wikipedia project, and I have created, expanded, improved, and even rescued, hundreds of them. One of my other specialisations is, like yours, English settlements, for which I also created and manage a dedicated Wikipedia project. and when considering expanding or merging anything to a geographic article, THIS essay I wrote may also be of help, however, with your experience and the exceptionally high quality of your articles, it might very likely just be confirming what you already know.

The Bourne Westfield Primary School deletion debate brought up many interesting arguments. Indeed, some of the protagonists for 'keep' are some of my closest administrator friends and colleagues on the Wikipedia. However, many Wikipedians are split into two camps: inclusionsts and deletionists, (I am somewhere in the middle), and It's always a good idea to look up the user pages of the people you are dealing with as it may help understand their rationale, and how best, in consequence, you can agree, or disagree, or agree to disagree with them. We are generally all here for one purpose: that of creating an encyclopedia, although many single use editors tend to forget that they are not supposed to be writing for themselves, promoting their friends or businesses, or favourite band or film star, or defending a personal mission or popular cause of some kind. The undeniable facts are, in my opinion, that the Bourne Westfield school article is largely comprised of trivia of local interest only, the sources mostly do not comply with our rules, and however encyclopedic the article may or may not be, the school's notability is not sufficiently demonstrated, and it does not therefore present adequate grounds for making an exception to the general policy concerning primary schools or following that strange, ambiguous, and controvesial policy of ours at WP:IAR. In my opinion, the closing admin made a perfectly correct judgment in weighing up the consensus and recommending the way to go. Regarding the merge itself, I agree that it creates unduly detailed content about a minor school in a short article about an equally minor settlement - the point being that the locality is not famous or notable because it hosts a school that is or is not notable, in a way that perhaps the towns of Malvern, Gordonstone, Eton, Harrow, or Bromsgrove are. And finally, and most importantly on schools, when you have read through the links have provided, THIS essay will sum it up perfectly for you and help you make your final conclusions to how you next proceed.

On a personal note, most of us have had our articles hacked to death and even deleted. I admire your tenacity and dedication, and I sincerely hope that whatever the outcome, that you will not abandon the Wikepdia in a fit of emotion as do some of our colleagues, and that you will continue to channel your skills in research and prose into the creation and improvement of more exiting articles, such as your excellent B-class articles on Hampton-on-Sea and Herne Bay Pier which I strongly feel you should consider nominating for WP:GA review, and your biographies, and perhaps also join in with some of the more tedious, semi- administrative tasks with which we need so much help, especially on monitoring WP:BLP articles and policy, and of course, schools :) Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind help, and the huge effort which you have made above, to explain. It is much appreciated. I have decided to sit back and wait and leave this for a bit, to see what happens. As you know, I have also userfied the article to Brunnian's userspace, so that the data will remain accessible after deletion of the article in mainspace. However, if other editors want to pursue this matter of preserving the data in mainspace more urgently, they have my support. I have spent a lot of time on this, and now must do other things. I'll copy this to KeithD.--Storye book (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

One source tag

I noticed in the Malcolm Arnold Academy article that you had removed the {{One source}} tag with this edit even though the article still only has one reference. I was wondering what the rationale was behind this, and if maybe I have been using the tag incorrectly. Thanks. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Narthring. No, you can rest assured that you haven't misunderstood the use of the tag at all, and I look forward to your continued monitoring of new school articles. I might have removed the tag inadvertently when I had reworked the article offline and pasted what was left back into its article space. However, secondary schools, especially state schools in the native English speaking countries served by the en.Wiki, are deemed to be de facto notable anyway, and their own website is enough to prove their existence. Any unsourced controversial claims and peacock terms should of course be either reliably sourced or immediately deleted. Malcom Arnold is a brand new school, and the article will remain a stub for a while until more information about it is built up. It's listed as a stub, so watchful members of the WP:WPSCHOOLS will add bits to it as time goes by. A major source will be its first Ofsted report, and as such, school article editors don't need reminding that it needs expanding. One thing that we constantly need to be on the look out for, is that school articles are very susceptible to vandalism by the pupils. --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I've recently started patrolling some of the new pages backlog and have been tagging pages with {{One source}} that only had one source. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't committing a faux pas and continue using it incorrectly; it wouldn't have been the first time. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time I made one either ;) Some editors accuse me of being a drive-by artist, but I do nearly all my tagging manually - and Malcolm Arnold Academy is proof that I almost always stop to improve what I can on the fly. But when I have done 200 or 300 in a day, although a 1% error is perfectly tolerable, they always seem to be the ones the extreme inclusionists find. Don't get despondent if they do it to you too. I'm glad you're working on the NPP backlog - that's where I usually work from too and where the greatest help is needed. Most of the articles languishing there are the ones the other NP patrollers didn't know what to do with. Unfortunately, if those older new pages aren't patrolled within 30 days, they fall off the cliff as 'patrolled' however bad they are. At least if they get tagged for something, and have stub templates added (even a generic one), we can keep tracks on them. The other advantage is that if they are really poor, have been there for 30 days without a significant edit, and doing a WP:BEFORE doesn't help, they can usually be uncontentiously WP:PRODed and will disappear automatically after a further 7 days. If you need any help in those areas, or a second opinion, don't hesitate to ask. --Kudpung (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hollie Greig

I have just created a new article called Hollie Greig. I hope it is allowed to remain. I have looked at the reason for the deletion of another page with the same title in April, whose author is unknown and not connected to me in anyway. I don't think the same criteria for deletion apply to what I have put. I would appreciate your help in creating an appropriate article.

Hollie was awarded criminal compensation when there was no crime number recorded by the Police. She was considered a credible witness, but her allegations were ignored. Her mother was sectioned, Hollie was returned by social workers to the man she accused of abuse and then her mother was found to be perfectly sane. These legal precedents should make her a 'notable' person. If that isn't enough, her home in Shropshire was searched by Scottish Police in June and items removed on the basis of a fictitious warrant. As the situation concerning who issued the warrant and its 'loss' by Grampian Police is ongoing, I have omitted to mention it until the situation can be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkinghorse (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're too late, it was deleted within seconds of being posted. In any case, the deletion rationale would have been identical to the previous deletion debate. See these rules for starters: WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPNAME, and I have to agree most strongly with those policies. --Kudpung (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my 3RR warning

While I am aware that I reverted Ridgewood High School (Florida) more than 3 times, I was not going to leave that entry in the article. It was an attempt at adding in a vanity entry that did not belong in the article, thus sneaky vandalism, as you yourself removed it when you came across it. I have no problems with any of my edits to that article or my interactions with Happykingdom123. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, that 3RR wars that go into a fourth or more revert, trigger alarms in the software and can lead to an automatic block. So even if the 3RR war between you and HappyKingdom was just friendly fooling around, you could both end up getting blocked. Please do not underestimate the amount of automation that runs the Wikipedia. Take care, and happy editing.--Kudpung (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that Gogo is well aware of that, right? He has close to 100k edits, and is a sysop.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly aware. So what?--Kudpung (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Automatic block? No, I don't think so. There are very few situations that trigger bot-based blocks or edit filter blocks and 3RR isn't one of them. I don't quite understand why you think Happykingdom123 and I were "friendly fooling around". Far from it. Well, either way, I don't think I broke 3RR due to the circumstances involved, but you're entitled to your own opinion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Automatic in so far as an admin can automatically and very quickly intervene to hang a block without much further ado - but you don't need me to tell you how to use the tools ;) Edit wars do show up however, and for a few hours it was the number one on the alert feed. I tend to interpret the rules that even if it is a question of fighting spam or vandalism, the admin or experienced editor should stop warring before they get their feet wet, and should perhaps find another solution - in your case, blocking. But the rules a re not graven in stone, and as you rightly say, we are all entitled to our opinion. I think I did the right thing by warning you both quickly, before I looked deeper into the background. It was your comment that you don't have any problems with HappyKingdom that let me to believe it was a case of friendly rivalry. No harm done.--Kudpung (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

'So what?' Because you appear to be treating them as if they are unaware of said things. Given their experience here, it is rather insulting to treat them as if they are. Especially templating them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. Also, you can't just claim my response to you is 'bordering on civility and PA'. It isn't, and is in fact no where close. I didn't insult you, all I said is that your own treatment of Gogo could be taken as insulting, given that you are treating him as if he is unaware of things like that, given his experience here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this; you don't template an experienced admin, and don't treat them as if they are inexperienced, and I won't warn you that that could be taken as insulting.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no bait. If you're going to treat an experienced admin as if they were inexperienced, I'm going to tell you that could be taken as insulting. Don't do that, and I won't tell you, it's that simple.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Arnold Academy

Please can you explain your revert of my edit to the Malcolm Arnold Academy regarding religion? I sourced my edit and added a note on the talk page. You, sir, appear to have done neither. 78.150.126.44 (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed I wasn't logged on. Knowing who to reply to will no doubt assist you. Yorkshire Phoenix 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, for a moment I thought you were a member of our WP:NORTHANTS or our WP:WPSCHOOLS project. I did indeed spend over two hours researching and considerably expanding the article, as the page history will confirm. However, being such a new school there isn't much that can be said about it yet. However, I did take the article from this to THIS. Nevertheless, do feel free to look the article over, check the sources for accuracy, and correct it or expand it as necessary. If anything is wrong, feel free to contact to school or its governing body to get an update for factual accuracy. You might also find this useful.--Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've spoken to Dr Stephen Partridge, the Diocesan Director of Education for Peterborough Diocese, and he confirmed to me that Malcolm Arnold Academy is a Church of England school and is being marketed as such: the Bishop of Peterborough himself sits on the Governing Body. Yorkshire Phoenix 08:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tyrone Noonan

Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tyrone Noonan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being or having been member of a notable band indicates importance/significance. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find from where you took the above policy statement, and if it wern't for the link to his self-published source, the article could still take a WP:BLPPROD. However, according to WP:BAND: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article, you may well be right about his notability, but for another reason. Nevertheless, avaiable WP:RS, in strict conformity with the policy, appear to very borderline indeed..--Kudpung (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for A7 is merely "importance", not notability. Feel free to redirect the article, PROD it, or bring it to AfD. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A7 always had a big grey area concerning importance vs notability, and it really needs a rethink one of the days. For the time being, we're concerned with generally cleaning up the huge backlog of BLP issues as best we can. I'll keep Tyrone on a watch list and if it does't develop by the and of the month I'll PROD it.--Kudpung (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

Hello, how can we improve the page Guido Guerrini (traveler) where you placed a cleanup template? I know my English is quite bad so I'm not able to do anything better. Thank you. --Antenor81 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done :) --Kudpung (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ;) --Antenor81 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Florida mouse

As far as I know, Usb10 is still reviewing, and, true, a request for a second opinion was made but only unofficially on the review page. The second opinion template was never installed. The first reviewer is responsible for closing the review. Usb10 apparently is still about and has not left Wikipedia. I freshened the Florida mouse prose here and there and entered some new pics. I don't believe there's a time limit on a review. I haven't received any communications from Usb10 so in this case it might be best to simply wait for Usb10 to finish the review. The article meets the good article critieria: the prose is fine, it follows MOS layout, it's broad in coverage with a focus on the main aspects of the topic, it's neutral, stable, etc. The article should satisfy the general reader. You could enter your review on the article review page. This might give Usb10 some additional insights and motivation to finish the review. If you have recommendations, make a list or revise yourself - I don't have ownership issues with the article but welcome collaboration from others. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A second opinion was correctly requested by USB10 by changing the GA nomination template on the article's talk page. No template is supposed to be placed etc. on the review page. A bot automatically updates GAN which is where I saw the request. The request was then withdrawn by USB10 after a second opinion was given.

USB10 is still the reviewer. I hinted at taking over, but they didn 't reply. Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you've stepped in now. Thanks for taking the initiative. I was going to do something myself, but I can see that it's now in good hands. BTW the comments you made on the pics are identical to what I would have made too :) --Kudpung (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Susanne, Diderot has kindly agreed to take over, and appears to have made some accurate comments. Good luck, i'm sure it will pass.--Kudpung (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I see my additional comments on the review page were interpreted as taking over the review. I can see why you might think that, but I didn't mean to-- they were just my opinion on the pic issue. I would be happy to finish the review, but I don't have USB10's permission. So I'll work it out with them and one of us will finish this thing up. Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, we all know your offer to continue the review was made in good faith. However, you should preferably get a green light from USB. Apparently he appears to be rather busy in RL so I suggest that if you have no response after 24 hours you can take it to be his tacit agreement. In anyway, the editors of Florida mouse can't be expected to be kept waiting any longer for a final judgement, and if they follow your recommendations this can happen quite quickly. I have run checks, and although photos of the creature exist on various websites, there is nothing that will pass our free or fair use criteria. --Kudpung (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, user USB is still around and has been editing the Wkipedia up until an hour ago.--Kudpung (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim Burkhalter

Thanks for catching my error in tagging the page on Tim Burkhalter. I missed those references, and I should have noticed them. My apologies! Ms. Citizen (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No problems - it's something anyone can miss :) --Kudpung (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Chiang Mai Flower Festival

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiang_Mai_Flower_Festival to see how this is NOT unambiguous copyright infringement. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. --Kudpung (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

?

Just wondering what the message on my talk page was all about? Did you send it to the wrong person, or did I do something I haven't realised? Thanks, Tom (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Tom, wrong talk page - that's what happens when people don't sign thier rude posts ;) My most humble apoplogies. I have removed it. Thanks for pointing it out.--Kudpung (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 00:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:User_talk:69.181.249.92

Ummm.. IP's can't use twinjle, right? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's right - I didn't think. I've noticed you doing a lot of good work; Keep it up, especially at New Page Patrol - we have a huge backlog, and after 30 days they default to 'keep' even if they re very nasty.--Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicaragua

Hi Kudpung. About Nicaragua, thanks. I'll move the post there. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sharks (rock band)

Hi. I have declined the proposed deletion of Sharks for the reasons I give on the discussion page of that article. I have, however, edited the article in the light of your comments. WoodyJoe (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

advice

hi since you seemed helpful and i dont want to draw attention to this yet can you tell me if you think this is appropriate thanks [1] Aisha9152 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is grossly inappropriate. Whatever you do, don't react to it. Ignore it. If any action is required I'll look into it as an uninvolved third party.--Kudpung (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

you dont need to give me talkbacks i am watching this page. anyway i looked and that user seems to do that kind of stuff all the time, they are even proud of it on their user page. im not sure what to do since everyone must know right? Aisha9152 (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

oops, wrong name! recreating as Online Legal Marketplace

Thanks for the very good tips and suggestions! Eclipsed (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder about new page patrolling

Dear Kupdung,

Adding This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. while someone is writing an article as you did within 2 mins of an edit on Raymond Lister a new page being worked on is not very helpful. This kind of problem can be avoided by not tagging articles being worked on and perhaps by patrolling from the back of the new pages list as is recommend. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the reminder. You are most welcome to help out on New Page Patrol, and perhaps also help us to encourage new users to prepare their articles in their user space first ;) --Kudpung (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure of the relevance of your mentioning of BLP in an article on someone who died in 2001 (as the article indicates) but if you need any help with any aspects of WP:policy feel free to ask and good luck with your vast quantity of speedy tagging (Msrasnw (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps I should point out that there is a difference between 'speedy tagging' and 'speedy fixing' I don't do 'speedy tagging', any more than you don't mass produce speedy stubs. This isn't the first time you've come here complaining, or the first time you picked on other experienced editors. Please don't come to my talk page again, I won't take your WP:BAIT.--Kudpung (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ibrahim Haski

Your action is completely wrong. He isn't living people :) Takabeg (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid your interpretation of the WP:MOS is completely wrong. Please include the detail in the first line of any biographical articles you create,then no one will misunderstand your articles. If you need help , please do not hesitate to ask.--Kudpung (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Thanks for cleaning up after my stubbing with Category:Living people. I'll add it to the remainder of the stubs I'm working on. Cheers! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Gagandeep Kaur

Hello. I'm Sainsf. I'm currently developing this article and request you that it shouldn't be deleted now. Thanks, --Sainsf<^> (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine - i was actually in the process of removing the tag becaus I saw you had started working on it again. It was only a PROD anyway, and you could have removed it yourself as soon as you add one reference. But please develop it quickly before someone else deletes it :) --Kudpung (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Well, it would be very kind if you can provide any reference for the article; I mean you please try to find a source from which Kaur's biography can be known. You aren't forced, do as you like. --Sainsf<^> (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know where to look. If you can't find any - and you are the expert on Indian stuff - I'm quite lost I'm afraid . --Kudpung (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Safari

Thats your problem. Sorry but I'm a (talk page stalker) of airplaneman, but GLoo doesn't work in Safari. Download Firefox (or Chrome if it's supported) and iGloo should work. :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 06:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)l

Golly, go back to using FFox? I gave up with it at least a year ago because it won't handle a lot of UTF-8 non Roman font I use, and it wouldn't display the images on Wikipedia pages ! Maybe they've fixed it in some recent releases - I'll give it a whirl. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I personaly like Google Chrome. Faster and overall better. :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 15:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead information

I wasn't the one that asked the question, I simply had to deal with some of the consequences. It was the wrong answer: the lead summarizes the article, and all information in the lead should appear in the article body.—Kww(talk) 07:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, It depends on the scope, breadth, length, and overall focus of the article. In one of our flagship biographies, the Featured Article on Emmy Noether, for example, the lead is very long. So long in fact that the next section is entitled 'Biography' which theoretically would be a redundant term since the article is a biography. Hence this section carries a repeat of the dob, (but not of the dod). Her death is a dedicated sub-section at the end of the long biography.

User:Elizium23 points out, quite correctly, that another FA on the other hand, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, does not repeat the dob. And you are the only one telling us all that 90% of our 650,000 biographies are wrong.

Nobody can know all the rules, policies, and guidelines for writing Wikipedia articles - these amount themselves to over a thousand or more pages. I take a pride in my knowledge of Wikipedia biography requirements because its's one of my main areas of specialization. Please provide us with a link to where it is stated quite categorically that the date of birth must be repeated again in the main body text of every biography - it may be in a deeply buried RfC somewhere and was never taken into policy, or it may be a recommendation in an essay - even I may have missed something, and I'm ready to learn. In the past you have said "Certainly there are situations that our guidelines and policies don't address precisely and situations that weren't anticipated," Remember, German graveyards are full of motorists who insisted on driving by the rules. But whether the dob should be repeated in the body text, is not a hard and fast rule, and nothing worth dying for.

The bottom line is, however, common sense trumps all rules, and I don't intend lightly to be discouraged from trying to be a helpful, polite Wikipedian.--Kudpung (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Go! Move! Shift!

I do hope that the AFD nom for the article on the Queensland School for Travelling Show Children is not motivated by anything other than misplaced deletionist urges ;-).

The school is small but especially significant as it caters for a very interesting community. The significance is well documented. Please assist in expanding the article (which you are, it seems, well placed to do) or leave it alone whilst I work on it. Silent Billy (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI I'm not a deletionst and I resent the tone (WP:PA). Roughly half of the thousand or so daily new submissions get deleted. Many of them beause they are insufficiently documented and simply do not even come close to meeting the criteria. The rest of them because they are blatant gibberish or nonsense. Somebody has to volunteer to check these entries - ( do you?) as well as finding time to write their own articles. When I have checked about 200 articles a day, I have passed about half of them, improved and rescued about 80 of them from the mess the were in, tagged about 10 - 20 as being in need of further attention, deleted some complete rubbish, and perhaps suggested that 2 or 3 may possibly in need of consideration by the broad community for an eventual deletion or merging. That has hardly anything to do with deletionism. If by 'well placed' you mean that I have significant experience in schools in both real life and on the Wikipedia, you may be right. Otherwise, I have no more powers and no more access to resources than you do yourself, and thanks to your complaint, will not be offering any more help with it. (see Talk:Queensland School for Travelling Show Children).--Kudpung (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Allerta

Thanks for your help. I'm working on expanding it into a nice and proper article with not just one but multiple paragraphs!. I'm worried about notability but I figure this might be one of those cases where Wikipedia can help to make it notable. Really though, most open source fonts are not notable at all but no one attacks their presence here and I'm glad there are articles about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayavaron (talk • contribs) 02:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that all open source software (including typography), and free-to-use software are meritorious and deserve an article in the encyclopedia. It is nevertheless absolutely essential that our policies concerning referenced sources are complied with. Do consider drafting your articles in your WP:user space first if you are unlikely to comply within the first few minutes. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem with dissapearing information

Regarding Swedish Armed Forces and Military ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces: I have included information (with strong references to reports published by the Swedish Armed Forces) about the distribution of personnel vs rank as well as what military units Sweden has as of today. For the reader this is very useful information in order to get a picture of Swedish ranks and Armed Forces. However, it is being blanked out by User:80.217.89.69. Most of the times he blanks out everything without any comments, sometimes he makes claims that no one can verify. How do we deal with this? Regards, --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for asking me for advice :) Repeat your message at the WP:EAR advice page, and one of us will examine it and take it from there. You'll get advice on what to do, and the info will be visible to any other editors who experience a similar problem in the future.--Kudpung (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did as you said :) --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Borovi4ok Userpage

Hi Kudpung, you have nominated my userpage for speedy deletion. do userpages actually have to meet "complexity requirements"? I simply need my userpage in case anybody wants to contact me, e.g. about my contributions to the English Wiki. regards, Borovi4ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borovi4ok (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have not nominated your user page for deletion. Your user page is here: User:Borovi4ok. For some reason, you have created a second user page in article space. That is the one that must be deleted. Ask me again if there is anything you don't understand :) --Kudpung (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Thanx for that :) Borovi4ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borovi4ok (talk • contribs) 13:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Talbot Baines Reed

Thank you for commenting on the peer review. I have no idea how a request to do this appeared on your talkpage. I have a feeling the bots are playing games; for example my click on your talkpage gave me the welcome "Hi, Edwardsbot..." I did suggest to User:Voceditenore that she took a look, and you have recently been in touch with her, so perhaps the wires got tangled somewhere? Anyway, no matter; your comments are much appreciated and will be acted on. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brian. The name on my talk page only changes when you enter edit mode. The software cannot recognise who is simply browsing a page. User:Voceditenore left a talkback here (see above) I don't know why, unless she picked my name at random from among the list of copyeditors. I don't think I've ever communicated with her before. Anyway I feel honoured, and I'm glad my comments have helped.--Kudpung (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. In case you didn't see my later comment on my talk page,here, I was responding to your message here. Perhaps, you meant to contact someone else? Best, the mad linguist, Voceditenore (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did see it. Sorry I couldn't remember it at the time. I saw Brian's post and I though that it might have have been something to do with his work. We bump into each other occasionally on music stuff - such as Elgar who lived in my home town. On another note (pun?), I know you said a couple of years ago that you don't have time to use an extended set of tools, but if you would like to reconsider, I would be most happy to nominate.--Kudpung (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

John Percy (politician)

Hey, thanks for your note. I'm not sure he was notable beyond being leader, but for Canada that's generally enough. I'd have to dig around, but there's a couple of AfD's where the community decided to keep leader articles because they've been the leader. Being a leader of a political party in Canada isn't the same as the US. The leaders here wield a lot of more influence. Perhaps try an RFC? --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, because I really don't know much about politics at all, so I just go strictly by the rules as they stand at WP:BLP and WP:NOTABILITY. You are welcome to try an RfC but you would need to do a lot of research to see if it's worthwhile and to make a convincing rationale for your opening gambit. In The UK and Europe we're generally very strict and anyone who has never been an MP doesn't get a look in. At local level a mayor of a large town is about as low as we go. The workaround is to see if they have been reasonably notable for something else so they pass the Wikipedia notability tests by accumulation. If you come up with any ideas, please don't hesitate to share them with me.--Kudpung (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Here we do articles one very Mayor, but not necessarily every councilor for the city council. I'll see what I can find. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

generally, to be notable enough without having ever held a parliamentary post, one would have to have made as much noise for decades, as for example did coal miner Arthur Scargill, who finally founded his own party (which has never won a seat) in 1996.--Kudpung (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on my article on S. Somasegar

Kudpung,

Thank you so much for your amazing feedback on my article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Somasegar.

I was not sure how to write back to you. If this is the incorrect page, my apologies.

I've incorporated a lot of your feedback, including

   * added place and country of birth
   * added date of birth
   * cleaned up references so that URLs don't show up
   * changed links with multiple references into "named" links so that they don't show up multiple times in references section
   * added The Overlake School board membership
   * added a redirect for Windows HPC Server to Windows HPC Server 2008 so that the reference on the page doesn't show up as red.

Would it be possible to help me with taking out the tag at the top that says, "[t]his page is a new unreviewed article."?

Thank you so much again.

NavMehta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navmehta (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Kudpung (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Which warning did I get wrong

Which warning did I get wrong ? VERTott 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow the link in my message. What you probably didn't notice (I do not see the same issues as the nominator, I do not see it as anything other than the summary of events) was that the article is not a biography at all. It is a totally biased account that only highlights a couple of extremely negative things about the person's career. This kind of sensationalism is for newspapers (the cheap ones), but it's not the way encyclopedia articles are written. The PROD rationale was exceptionally well written and recognised the problem perfectly - the admin is one of the leading crafters of the policies that run this encyclopedia. I know it's not always easy to recognise a good article from a bad one because the differences are often very subtle, but it does come with practice - on New Page Patrol for example, consider tagging the easy stuff first, such as blatant nonsense, vandalism, and empty pages, and try to distance yourself from the contentious stuff that could earn you some flak from the big guns. So a good tip is to check out the user page to see who you are intending to tag, and have a look at their edit count. New Page Patrol is indeed in desperate need of help, particularly accurate tagging. A good place to start is from the backlog, but with all due respects, perhaps you might like to take time to check out our policies. There is an awful lot to learn and remember - WP:NPOV is a particularly hard one. Don't worry though, it only took me four years and 18,000 edits, and I still only know about half the rules:) Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK - I thought I was doing what it told me to do on the page "Wikipedia:Proposed deletion" it says that you should let the person know by placing a I have removed the {{prod}} tag from [[{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! tag on their user talk page.. VERTott 06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point I was really making is that WSC is one of our most experienced admins, and one of the most specialised policy makers across the entire suite of Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects, but fortunately he is also one of the nicest and most understanding admins we have have here, while some other admins can get quite shitty if you tread on their toes ;) If you're going to do a lot of New Page Patrol (while remembering that contrary to what a lot of people believe, high edit counts for tagging stuff don't earn us much merit), you might wish to install the TWINKLE javascripts. This will add extra buttons to your Wikipedia tool bar which will automate the process of notifying users if you CSD, PROD, or AfD their articles. It will also offer you a drop-down menu of tags to put on articles, and an automated CSD/PROD/AfD sytem at one click of a mouse. Most importantly, it also offers several hundred other standard warnings too, that you can place on users' talk pages. These many warnings are templates that have been carefully worded by teams of Wikipedia project members to be as least offensive as possible. This takes the hard work out of wondering what to say, and running the risk of sounding aggressive. However, there are people who take even those warnings as an insult and they will try to game the system and accuse you of being in the wrong. It happens all the time! So if you do decide to use Twinkle, do so judiciously and with great caution. As always, bear in mind the WP:AGF rule, and don't hesitate for a moment to ask me for help anytime.--Kudpung (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I will have a look at TWINKLE javascripts and if (or I suspect more likely when) I have any questions will ask.VERTott 08:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Sorry to hassle you with Talkback's, but I've got a reply to your problem with the NPP script. Usb10 ^Connected? 23:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong allegations

Sorry to bother you about this, but I'm very concerned and baffled about this whole issue. What's ultimately at stake here is not only this article, but how WP:BLP#Public figures is interpreted in general with respect to notable and well-sourced allegations about public figures.

Since you're arguing for endorsement of the deletion based on the quality of the arguments, and none of the pro-deletion arguments even referenced WP:BLP#Public figures or any other specific section of WP:BLP nor any other policy, can you please answer the question I posted near the end of the current discussion? I just don't follow the argument for deletion at all, much less see it as a quality argument. Answering my question should be a big help in that regard.

Also, I addressed the comment you made about my previous statement about consensus determination not determined entirely by participants. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't generally extend ongoing formal debates onto my talk page, however , as the person who initiated (but not posted) the Lance Armstrong AfD, I'm happy to address your first comment above. Our BLP policy at WP:BLP#Public figures is inadequate. In all good faith in addressing the public figures policy, the work group who decided it failed to qualify exactly what (or who) a public figure is. I have been involved in the crafting of BLP policy for quite a while, and it is one of the points on my list of things to discuss through the normal channels of policy making and amending.

I have responded on the debate to your reply to my comment about your apparent change of heart on defending the consensus determination. Consensus, where there is one, is always determined entirely by participants - the closing admin just consolidates it by summing it up in a concise closing rationale, much in the same way as a judge sums up, for the record, the verdict that has been pronounced by the jury. In my opinion, admins are rarely very wrong (as opposed to those who attempt to do non-admin closures), and this entire Lance Armstrong issue has received an unusually large amount of attention from some of our most learned sysops.

I won't be adding more to the drama this AfD and its revision have become. It's time to let it take its course. I will however analyze carefully the outcome, whatever it will be, as it will help in filling any loopholes in our policies. Whether I like the eventual decision or not is beside the point - I try, though not always 100% successfully, to remain objective. --Kudpung (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WorcesterCoatArms.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WorcesterCoatArms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This image is no longer orphaned. It was inadevertently removed from its page by an editor in good faith. The edit has ben reverted.--Kudpung (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall & Talk:Cambridge renaming

Hi Kudpung - a User (User:Floydian has proposed moving all places stated above and has caused some conflict your comments would be appreciated on the talk pages - I'm against it by the way. Likelife (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to say how silly this is talk:York has now been added to the list!. Likelife (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Silly? It's fatuous. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends in an ANI or an ARBCOM for tendentious and disruptive editing.--Kudpung (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mater Maria Catholic College

Please do not remove sourced news. Please view Mater Maria talk page. ThanksEnidblyton11 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The item is unencyclopedic trivia. Please refer to policy.--Kudpung (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

quoting you

• Good morning!
• I'm working on an essay; it's gonna take a very long time to complete. But I am quoting you, so perhaps I should let you know: see User:Ling.Nut/Siege. • Ling.Nut 01:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Global perspective

You do realize the nationality comment didn't originate with me, right? Another editor had done that count; I referenced back to his thread Purplebackpack89 02:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies - I had indeed not noticed, please do not feel offended. It does not however change my stance on the core matter for debate, and the way the debates and/or discussions have been proposed. --Kudpung (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, could you link me to the diff for this "trans-pond cabal" stuff? Purplebackpack89 02:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mater Maria Catholic College

How dare you keep deleting an important part of the article. Please view the talk page if you wish to change the current consensus.Enidblyton11 (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Joe Burgess

Hi, I just want to let you know that Joe Burgess, an article that you tagged for BLPprod, now has a reference and the prod has been removed. If you believe that this article still doesn't meet notability requirements, feel free to nominate it for a traditional prod or AfD. J04n(talk page) 09:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks ;) The main thing is that our policy has been complied with, and it avoids possible deletion of what might be an admissible article. --Kudpung (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Imposter?...

Hi, I just saw this new user, User:Kudpung99 (I know that's a redlink), their contribs are here and having seen your username somewhere, I wondered if it was an alternate account of yours. I had a quick look at your user page and couldn't see anything about alternate accounts, so I assume it isn't and because you seem to have an unusual username I was wondering if they were trying to impersonate you or anything. Anyways just thought that I should let you know and if you want to do anything about it you can. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing this out. It's definitely nothing to do with me, but I'll certqinly look into it - it might be the sock of a detractor, but there's probably nothing much I can do about it otherwise. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of PC/Nametag Inc.

Hi, I have just recieved an email to notify me that you nominated the page PC/Nametag Inc. for speedy deletion stating that it is simply advertising the company itself, where as the purpose of the article is to give a history of the origins of the company and was very carfully written to do so. We feel that in creating this article we have not done anything that is outside the guidlines of wikipedia, infact if our page has been removed why is the likes of companies such as [the coca cola company] not removed as they do very much the same thing? I just find this rather confusing and a little clarification and advice for furture articles of this nature would be very useful for moving forward to ensure these errors do not occur again. Cheers and thanks in advance for the advice. Mrsox87 (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I did indeed nominate the article for speedy deletion, and a senior, uninvolved editor (an administrator) reviewed the nomination, found it to be in order, and deleted the article. The first thing to do is to follow the links in the nomination notice at User talk:Mrsox87#Speedy deletion nomination of PC/NAMETAG Inc. (PCN). That is your talk page which, once you have signed on for a Wikipedia user account, you should regularly monitor for messages from the administrators and other editors. If you had been following your talk page, you may have been able to protest the speedy deletion, and at least state your case, or wait for the deletion to be debated by the Wikipedia community at WP:AfD. The main thing to understand is that Wikipedia is not a trade directory where all companies have a right to be listed. The idea being that we allow an article about a company if there is something really notable that can said about it and which has encyclopedic value. I don't think your company compares with the likes of CocaCola, Microsoft, General Motors, Cadbury's Cholcolate, or any other of the companies that have impacted on society and shaped the way we live. In any case, the most important policy there is this one. Secondly, you should not even be writing an article about your company, or the company your agency represents - if the firm is notable enough, someone else will suggest that we should have an article about it (see our rules at WP:COI). I'm sorry about all this, but those are the rules I'm afraid.--Kudpung (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I think it’s highly unfair to delete an article about a company as you feel it hasn’t had as big an impact within society as a whole as some of the biggest companies in the world. Had you done your research yourself about the company in question you would have found that they have had a huge influence within their sector with the innovations mentioned in the article, however by your reasoning because the company reach is towards a niche audience rather than a broad audience it does not deserve to be contained within Wikipedia, despite content being neutral, containing citations, and was all correct information. So it feels as though the article was penalised as you may not have previously heard of the content, although I think you should ask yourself; after reading the article did you not learn something new that you may not have known before? At the end of the day the content was resourceful and informative with absolutely no sales pitch, about a company who is the biggest in their sector in Northern America, and that’s what Wikipedia is there for: information. You don’t know if I have a link to the company, just like you don’t know if anyone posting on other large companies are directly linked, however I see this as irrelevant as I am yet to see anything that says you can’t write about content that you are close to so long as it is done correctly (and if it exists please let me know). In regards to the appeal I know for now on to log into Wikipedia more regularly to check any messages I may have. Mrsox87 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I looked at PC/NAMETAG Inc. (PCN) and I concur with the nomination and the deletion. The article did nothing but promote a company, and was deleted under WP:CSD#G11. If, in fact, the company is actually influential and innovative, it should be no problem to find citations from reliable sources - independent of the company itself - to demonstrate its notability. Please click the individual links in the previous sentences, and also read WP:CORP. Nobody is targeting anyone or anything here, and nobody is saying the company isn't notable. What we're saying is that the article that was written was completely promotional and did not in any way assert or demonstrate why the company might be notable. If it is, great - let's get an article going. If it isn't, then it can't remain. One thing to note: just because a company exists doesn't make it notable. There are, in fact, millions of companies around the world; the vast majority of them do not have an article in Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Frank, thanks for the input. It would be useful if I could get an outline as to what exactly was wrong with the article so I know when making future contributions, as I did try to follow the rules as closely as possible. Mrsox87 (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, it did nothing but promote the company. The only reference provided was a Q&A with its founder - not exactly independent coverage. No other reference was provided. Take a look at WP:INCUBATE. That might also be helpful.  Frank  |  talk  18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. As Frank has explained perfectly above, unless the deletion proposal was done hastily, without sufficient reflection by an inexperienced |New Page Patroler (which was not the case here), there were in fact several reasons why the article did not meet our criteria for inclusion. Thousands of new articles are posted daily, and apart from occasional ones that might just need a simple, quick tweak to make them pass, the volunteers who work here regularly just don't have time to do background research for each one of the hundreds of corporate postings, most of which, I may add, get deleted. There is nothing arbitrary or personal in the process, and at the end of the day, this is the rule. Ideal of course, were if all new users would familiarise themselves with the rules first, unfortunately many of them don't, because they only come here to post one article.You could start developing a new article in your user user space which every user has for this purpose, and if you let us know about it, we will keep it on our watchlists and look in from time to time to see how it is going,and offer advice on how to make it comply with our policies. However, it is important to bear in mind that references, however reliable, accurate, and verifiable they are, do alone not confer notability. Please remember to follow all the blue links in the message on yyourur talk page, and he ones in this, and Frank's message above. regards, --Kudpung (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I will keep this in mind in future posts, I had spent time trying to read and understand the rules, but obviously misinterprited some areas. I will continue to go through what you have supplied to ensure that moving forward everyone will be happy that everything submitted is up to scratch! Cheers. Mrsox87 (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The easiest first thing to do is try to find references in external sources that demonstrate the company is notable. If you can do that, there is much that can be done to create and improve an article, and you'll find people to help. If you can't, what you'll likely find instead is frustration, because people will throw policies at it, nominate it for deletion, and generally make it seem like this is an unfriendly place. The opposite is true, but it can be masked sometimes by the fact that "regulars" around here are fairly highly committed to building a serious encyclopedia and following its policies in doing so.  Frank  |  talk  12:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edward Elgar

Hello, Kudpung. I have nominated Sir E. for Featured Article, and would greatly value your contribution to its consideration. Regards! – Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly...

Absolutely no reason to apologize, communication is never a bad thing. I wouldn't argue for either of those articles at AfD but the way it currently reads it does't take much to remove a BLPprod. If either of those articles received a traditional prod they would most likely have been deleted days ago. Take care J04n(talk page) 10:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of POINT, CABAL, etc.

Please, stop making them against Floydian and myself. It's not POINT, it's not a CABAL, it's not WABBITSEASON, it's not any of them. We have an argument for renaming that is couched in guidelines, and it is perfectly acceptable to nominate multiple articles for renaming at or around the same time, unless a move discussion for them failed recently (Floydian probably should've used, but he seems a little new to the MOVE game and he's not familiar with the templates they use). So, please, don't go accusing Floydian or me of violations of policy; ESPECIALLY if you yourself are arguing a point with very dubious footing in guidelines Purplebackpack89 17:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Shaheed Pir Chandam

Hi, me again. The above has been dead for 400 years. It happens, take care J04n(talk page) 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I had already spent a couple of minutes starting to clean it up, then I couldn't find any sources, but yes you are right - it happens :) --Kudpung (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle question

Hi there! Thanks for responding to my question. I don't use Twinkle much, and only rarely send an article to AfD, so it's all a bit new and tentative for me. I had thought that using it for AfD would automatically place the various messages on the relevant pages (since the tool asks for details such as categories and rationale) but it didn't. I had to place those manually after the event (including the rationale on the AfD page). The only step I hestitated over when using the tool was whether to check the "wrap" box or not (I didn't) as I wasn't certain what that actually did. The Twinkle instructions seem to imply that it's all very straightforward but I wondering whether a "First time user's guide to using Twinkle" with screen shots might be useful for those using it for the first time. If that exists already and I really am being dense, please just point me in the right direction. And, yes, I think if there are add-ons which would help automate the whole process including the list notifications, please let me know.--Plad2 (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. For all deletion methods - WP:AfD, WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD, Twinkle gives you a drop down menu of things to chose from, or to enter extra info that may be needed. I never use the 'wrap' box - infact I don't know what it's for either, but I've used Twinkle thousands of times without a hitch. The main thing however, is to memorise a couple of hundred of the main acronyms we use. Twinkle also gives you a whole bunch of page-top maintenance banners too. The greatest advantages are that it automatically notifies the article creator, and saves you from having to open the edit mode and manually apply the template tags to the article. It's all java script dependent but if your are running the latest version of your browser, it should all work. I only use Mac, and if it all works on F/Fox and Safari on MacOS it will work on almost anything. It's all so self-explanatory you don't really need any instructions or screen shots. Another great script useful for AfD is delsort, which also enables semi automatic entry on the transcluded delsort pages. Go to WP:DELSORT and read up on it, get the script, and put it on your /monobook.js or whatever Wikipedia skin you are using. Give it all a try, test the templates in your sandbox, and if there a re some details you don't quite understand, don't hesitate to come back here for more help :) --Kudpung (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC) PS: The main catalogiue f templates we use for things is here: WP:TC.

Terrific. Thanks for the advice. I'll give that a go when I have a moment. I'm using latest Firefox, so that should be OK. It may just be that I was expecting it to do more steps than it actually does. I'll practise a bit and come back if I have any queries.--Plad2 (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)