User talk:Kudpung/Archive Sep 2011

I'm new to this, can you help please?

Hi Kudpung,

I saw you wrote an article about Hanley Castle High School. I attended this school in the 1970's, how can I be of help by providing more background material for this article?--87.114.243.69 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will just add that I also still live in Malvern. --91.125.134.9 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am also currently in Malvern. If you have any ideas for expanding the article, the history section would probably the best place to start. Remember though, that all additions to the article must be referenced to reliable sources.

BTW: You may wish to consider creating an account. It only takes a few seconds and you will have many more advantages. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assistance

Need assistance with a vandal. User talk:Kenneth cooke245. Creating numerous hoax articles in the same vein as Jake Picasso. Consistently removing CSD tags beyond the fourth warning. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - been out all day and JohnCD beat me to it. Let's keep all those deleted articles on our watch lists in case of recreations under block evasion accounts. This block is also a classic reason to support WP:ACTRIAL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at User:Kennethcooke786? He created a couple new accounts and has been back recreating more hoax articles, but nobody has apparently been working SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kennethcooke213. Thanks, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per duck. I don't think there's any need to bother the CUs on this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... quacking loudly. Thanks, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hello! It's me again, with the usual topic ;). Thanks for the link you sent me during the summer- I had read most of it already, but there was still some nice information there. I'm preparing for yet another, and hopefully last, RfA, and in my preparations (going back over my talk page and the RfA, as well as the list of people willing to perform RfA nominations) I found your name pop up a lot. Especially since you opposed in my last RfA, I would really appreciate it if you could give me some quick feedback for the RfA- over tell me that it's not yet time, if necessary. --Slon02 (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be happy to look into this for you. It will take a day or two. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates as proof of notability??

Hey can you look at Carteret Yeshiva Deletion page, there some talk to keeping it just because it's part of Template. I would really appreciate if you can look through it and offer your expert opinion. Thanks The Terminator p t c 17:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my comment on here, you'll see that inclusion of links on navigation templates is entirely arbitrary, and is not a criterion of notability - in fact no internal Wikilinks are. As far as I can interpret from very recent comments made by Jimbo Wales, schools do not have inherent notability. As far as I know, yeshivot must also satisfy WP:ORG. You may wish to ask TerriersFan, also a coordinator of WP:WPSCH for his opinion too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. The Terminator p t c 19:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Summer of Research 2011

I came across this today, and found it enlightening. Seeing that you're a generally respected CSD authority on this site, I thought that the results might be pretty interesting for you, especially the breakdown of all CSD tags applied throughout the history of the site. Regards, -- $Σ talk contribs$ 02:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have the various SoR projects on my MetaWiki watchlist. I've made some comments there you might find interesting. Do you do any work at AfC? I'd be interested to have your feedback if you do. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Kudpung. I'd completely forgot I'd sent this out, I wrote it just after putting up the straw poll on the Minimum requirements. Seems to take an absolute age for the request to go through. Hope it doesn't step on the toes of any newsletter you're planning to do.

By the way, after a quick chat on SandyGeorgia's page, I'm thinking about writing up a "report" of the findings on our data pages. After all, people on wikipedia are more interested in words than figures, so data analysis is unlikely to be interesting. If I can write up a report (which I'd really appreciate you checking over), it is hopefully going to lend more weight to the arguments. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 17:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Calabe1992 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Neighbor Pharmacy

Just wanted you to know that the PROD you placed on that page (which I endorsed) was removed, with a couple of references added in. I'm still less than convinced the place is notable, however. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Neighbor Pharmacy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Good evening I appreciate your action regarding this discussion. I feel that trashing articles on Wikikpedia is seriously offensive.1archie99 (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Bercovici's granddaughter looking to expand his page

Noted author/sociologist/journalist Konrad Bercovici was my grandfather. There is a page up on Wiki that is painfully thin/sketchy considering everything he was known for and accomplished in life. Including 50 published books, 1000s of award-winning short stories, screenplays for Chaplin, work for the Nation and NY Times, for the founding of Israel...just an endless list. I am working on a collection of some of his unpublished work about people he knew...including Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Modigliani...and the book proposal into is basically a good Wiki page with lots of info on his life, quotes, sources, lists of published and unpublished work, review quotes, etc.

But the whole Wiki rules are pretty daunting in terms of formatting it for them. I would really like to find somebody to help get this up and running. As I am a writer, it is basically written...just need to get it up. Especially since there is a lot of interest in his work lately...Columbia U wants his papers... as well as in my mother;s work, painter and poet Mirel Bercovici who passed away this past December. And I want to keep the family legacy alive...

Please let me know if this is the kind of project you can become involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbrmc (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm afraid my time for article development is fully committed for at least the next few weeks. Nevertheless, you can consider doing this yourself, our editing rules are quite easy to grasp, just follow the links that have been placed on your talk page at User talk:Kbrmc. The main things you need to bear in mind are our Conflict of Interest policy, and that everything you write must be referenced to WP:Reliable sources. Good luck :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost

I am almost 18. I'm turning 18 in November. --#1 Fan of Queen (Talk | Contribs) 15:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... then I made a good guess ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Angeline88

Hi. If you have a look at this you'll see that this person seems to have a grudge against Jonathan Bate. User:Johnuniq reverted and pointed him/her to WP:BLP, and I've reverted several times, but (s)he seems impervious to reason. Any chance you could step in and do something drastic? --GuillaumeTell 18:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Toddst1 beat me to it. I was having my dinner! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Dawn Hirons

I came across this article which refers to the murder of my second cousin (adopted) Brenda Dawn Hirons. I would like to do some further research about this but uncertain where to start, and wonder if it is possible to contact the original author of the article. I have a few facts to add, about the events of the time, but some belong in the category of personal stories and I am uncertain if Wikipedia is the right vehicle for this.

Roseatbuzz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseatbuzz (talk • contribs) 07:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article (its correct title is Murder of Brenda Dawn Hirons) was created by User talk:Fallonlane around 15 December 2009 and has not received any substantial content edits since then. I have sent the creator an email on your behalf asking that they leave a message on your talk page at User talk:Roseatbuzz. This may or may not meet with a response. By all means please expand the article if you can, but do read up on the editing help by following the links I have placed on your talk page. Do bear in mind that any information you add must be sourced - the article already has long passages of unverified information, and that personal information that has not been published in some form elsewhere is un fortunately not admissible. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Brenda Dawn Hirons

Thank you for the information and assistance - I'll hope to hear from the author of the article. I see you are interested in matters relating to Malvern where I grew up, so if I can help at all on this subject please let me know Roseatbuzz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseatbuzz (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Malvern is already a WP:Good Article, and shortly, I hope, will be undergoing its review to be come a WP:Featured Article. I wrote or expanded most of the Malvern articles (see the links is the navigation box at the bottom of the Malvern page), and related articles such as those on schools in the area. Most of these could do with some expansion - referenced of course. I am curently in >Malvern and have taken hundreds of photos to beter illustrate these articles. pages about settlements surrounding Malvern, especially villages and towns such as Evesham, Pershore, and Upton also need expansion. For a full list of things to do in the area, do visit the Wikipedia Worcestershire project that I started, and don't hesitate to join that project if you would like to become an active Wikipedian. I hope you will be able to obtaining the help you need on the Brenda Dawn Hirons article - I`m afraid I'm personally unable to be of much assistance there. Remember that all the blue words here and eleswhere on Wikipedia are clickable links to other pages. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Worcester Cathedral and the River Severn - geograph.org.uk - 263347.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Worcester Cathedral and the River Severn - geograph.org.uk - 263347.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's this got to do with me? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably TWINKLE read that you had added to the description page and got confused, apologies :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Slon02's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Interesting RfA observation...maybe

Maybe interesting only to me, but I got to wondering at the idea that the so-called "RfA regulars" are a somewhat-powerful crowd. I went back to my own RfA and looked through the names of those who expressed opinions, and while I knew some were no longer around, I was actually interested to see quite a large number are nowhere to be found (and, indeed, a few are indef-blocked). No way to capture those statistics easily, I would think...and not sure it's interesting for everyone, but I wonder if there's anything to be made of the fact that - "regulars" or not, at the point they opine - those who participate in RfA may no longer be around after not-too-much time anyway. (The conclusion to draw, perhaps, might point at a harder gauntlet, which might not serve us well.) Frank | talk 22:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank. Yes, it's interesting. We've actually pulled a lot voting patterns from the database. The core of regulars has in fact remained fairly stable for the last 18 - 24 months, but it's true that after much more than two years it has usually changed completely. Due to the concentrated effort that is now being made to bring about some changes to the system the existing group of regulars looks set to continue longer than that. Your own RfA was over 3 years ago, and while it is true that there are a lot of unknown names, 5 or 6 are still contributing to RfAs fairly regularly. Also since your RfA, participation on RfAs has grown significantly. Today's regulars are indeed a small but powerful crowd, and unfortunately, some of them use their vote as a protest against adminship as an institution rather than opposing the candidate for any appropriate reason, while others would appear to take part with the sole intention of simply being disruptive. We've created a lot of useful and fascinating data at WP:RFA2011/VOTING, and since just only two days ago we've developed a useful little tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One note to your response - I suppose I sound like an "old guy" now, but when you say "a lot of unknown names", in fact, quite a number of them from that time were prolific, productive contributors whose names I was proud to count among supporters. They were anything but unknown just 3 short years ago. (I recall that while I'm "old" by Wikipedia standards, you're even older...we needn't get into specifics, but let's say I remember...hmmm, the United States Bicentennial...quite clearly.)

The tool you linked looks useful but I feel like I've participated in more RfAs than it records...is it me or the tool?

Finally, if there's some input you think might be useful to provide in this effort, let me know. I'm not so convinced that RfA either can or should be changed, but I'm not opposed either. And if change which makes the project better is in the offing, then I'm in favor. Frank | talk 03:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Old' is relative. I've been around since 2006 but I only consider myself to be a Wikipedia since May 2009. When I said 'unknown names', I meant as regards their contribs to RfA - it's quite possible that they are still very active in other areas and/or content work; for many people, the novelty of voting at RfA wears off after a while, perhaps because it can take half an hour or even longer to do one's own research rather than just place a 'as per' vote. There were for example on my RfA some pile-on that followed someone who got things completely wrong and who later changed their vote from oppose, but those who piled on did not revisit and change theirs.

The vote counter tool is set by default to examine only the last 50 votes to RfA but this can be overridden to include them all. If you have any suggestions how to improve it, please contact Snottywong who made it at my suggestion.

Anything you can bring into the efforts of WP:RFA2011 would be most particularly welcome. Good ideas and positive suggestions from the right people are always needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa candidates report

Hi Kudpung. I mentioned before that I was looking to create a report on our investigations into candidates, so that editors could better understand the results. At the moment it is a sea of numbers, and I can see that it might be difficult to navigate through, so I've tried my best to summarise things in a report. My plan would be to then link the report from the proposal. I've written up the first three sections and was wondering if you could review them. Also, if you have time, would you be able to do a short write up (1-2 paragraphs, as per the above sections) regarding what happens on other wikipedias? Worm^TT · (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in replying, I've been snarled up with another major Wikipedia issue, and been very busy in RL these past few days. I'm now preparing for my return to Thailand on Tuesday after this long stay in the UK, so I won't be very active until the end of next week. I've read your report and I think it's a very good idea. It sums our research up very well and it will save voters on an RfC having to wade through the masses of stats and tables we have created. It will also help to keep the proposal statement short, concise, and unambiguous. I think any tables can be left out of the report alltogether, and simply link to them in footnotes in the way we make inline citation for articles. Where the tables are in stand alone page sections, we can link to the L2 headers, and where the tables are within a section we can add a place anchor.

In spite of the way the local poll went on the project page, your summary seems to clearly indicate arecommended minimum bar of 3,000/6, and I think that's what we should head for in the RfC. Typical experience with RfC shows that punters will respond by introducing their own suggestions anyway, and failing a clear consensus for 3,000/6, a closure will probably have to be based on a mean of the suggestions. We'll just have to ensure that there is the maximum turnout for the RfC.

I'm not sure it's important or helpful to mention what the other Wikis do. I think that just a brief mention in the proposal statement that other major Wikis already exercise a minimum requirement, and link to the 'Other Wikis' section that I researched and made. If you would like to chat about this in more detail in real time before I go for my flight, the best way would be to Skype video me - just leave me a message about what time you expect to call (UK time of course until Tuesday.) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador applications

There are a few good applications for ambassador pending approval. In particular I was hoping maybe you could comment on this one. -- My76Strat (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give me...

....work to do. --Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. That's no problem! You can of course work on the backlogs by voting on older AfD and MfD. The rest of what I suggest below (collapsed to save space on this talk page) will of course be biased so you'll have to decide whether you support or disagree with the objectives of the projects I'm working on. You'll need to do a lot of reading to get up to date and back in the fast lane, but I really believe it would be worth it.

Things you can consider doing

First of all there is the schools project at WP:WPSCH which has a list (not too long) of school pages in need of urgent attention. It also has lists of schools that are, or could be, potential GAs if they were given a bit of TLC. There is also a recent discussion again on the perennial issue regarding the perceived or inherent notability for high schools. In a nutshell, Jimbo made a statement in 2003 that high schools should have articles, and this was taken to assume they are automatically notable, whether referenced or not, so long as they really exist. When asked to comment during the new discussion, he turned round on this and said that all schools must meet WP:ORG (or something to that effect). Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but the coordinator of the schools project, and as an admin who has to delete or close AfDs, I would like a clear ruling so that I know what I'm supposed to be doing. That said however, I'm in favour of keeping the status quo for purely pragmatic reasons: genuine high schools are notable if proven to exist, primary schools are not inherently notable and must meet WP:ORG, nd if they don't they get redirected to the school district rather than deleted. This would avoid a mass deletion spree by the deletionists of tens of thousands of school articles, and would enable us to knock some sense into the NPPers. There just aren't enough editors to vote an close 100s of new AfDs.

WP:RFA2011 is still going strong and making some slow, but sure progress towards getting its first firm suggestion ready for RfC. A local poll on the project page is still open and you can express your opinion on that. Your opinions and ideas on any aspect of reform would of course be most welcome. The task force members are a bit lethargic, and if you would like to work more on that project, I could suggest you becoming a coordinator, but this would need the consensus of the other coordinators. You'll see that I've recently made a new navigation template to help get around the various sub pages more easily. let's not kid ourselves that RfA reform is going to happen overnight, but this is the first RfA project ever that has gained so much momentum and some support from Jimbo.

Six months ago, an RfC was held based on research into NPP that Snottywong, Blade, and I did into the near total breakdown of NPP as a process for monitoring the quality of new pages. The RfC ended in a clear consensus for the proposition we made to restrict the creation of new pages to autoconfirmed users - this was the only viable solution we could find to the problem of NPP. This RfC was followed up with a further central RfC to determine the terms for the trial before the new rule is to be adopted permanently; the trial was passes by consensus on an almost unianimous consensus. This new rule requires a small, and easy php change to the user group permissions in the site software. The request to the developers, which has to be made through a spin-off agency called Bugzilla, was refused bluntly and very rudely by a couple of devs and/or WMF employees. And so a huge polemic rages now. There would be a huge amount of reading to catch up on this, and it would be up to you which side you support; it's clear which side I'm on, because I spent 100s of hours patrolling new pages, patrolling the patrollers, and doing a lot of the research for the stats.

There are two essays that I maintain: Advice for younger editors which I rewrote for Brad in a language more aimed at 10 - 14 year olds. The problem of this is keeping it short enough to be sure they will read it, while saying everything that needs to be said, and avoiding WP:BEANS. I have now moved my essay Advice for RfA candidates to Wikipedia space. If you have any suggestions fr improvement of these essays, please make them on their talk pages.

Other semi admin work that you can consider, is checking out the editors who have posted editor review requests, and offering your opinions there. If you are sure about the information you an provide, you can try your hand at working on one or some of the help desks - it would look good on your Wiipedia resumé - I would suggest WP:EAR to which I used to be a regular contributor but don't have so much time to do now. Jezhotwells is the resident expert there, but of course anyone with clue can provide answers and/or redirect the enquirers to more appropriate help desks. Consider doing some GA reviews, but only if you feel really competent to do it; if you've not done one before, you might like me to watch over your shoulder while you do one.

Some of us experienced editors have decided to stop wasting our time doing the patrolling th NPPers can't cope with, in order to prove a point. You can help by patrolling the patrollers, that is, checking their patrol logs against articles they have patrolled to see if they are getting their tagging right - obviously you won't be able to view any pages already deleted, but if you are suspicious, let me know. Likewise, you can also check the recently patrolled pages to see if they have been correctly tagged, and if they are recreations of previously deleted versions, and if the authors have previously been warned for copyvio, attack, or vandalism etc. It would be too much for you to systematically check every patroller and every page, so do this at random. You'll soon get a feel from the titles of the pages if they are likely to be a bit odd, particularly biographies, and companies.

Take a look at my User:Kudpung/vector.js page and see if there are any scripts you might find useful. You might even just want to copy the whole lot and then later delete the ones that you don't find particularly helpful. If you are using the monobook skin, you just put them in your monobook.js page instead.

Links for the autopatroll saga:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles Consensus for new user group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles/Trial_duration Consensus for new user group trial
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208 Bug request
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_creation_workflow Alternative WMF project
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_creation_workflow#Are_we_really_examining_the_entire_workflow_here.3F Talk: Alternative WMF project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol New Page Patrol project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Article_namespace_checklist Instructions for New Page Patrollers
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Patroller_work_load&diff=0&oldid=2703934 Research: New Page Patrollers
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Patroller_work_load Talk:Research: New Page Patrollers
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions The speed of speedy deletions
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions

High schools;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_83#Notability_of_High_Schools
Wikipedia:Notability (high_schools)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (high schools) - important, takes the Jimbo Wales talk page thread even further.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overload the poor chap!

I'll reply to your comments in the section above as soon as I can, Kudpung. I'm not sure how easy it will be to Skype, as I'm rarely online on evenings and weekends - most of my wikistuff is done during down time at work - and they don't have the facility. Will see what I can do. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I've got my work cut out for me! As soon as I get done reading ANI and catching up, I'll start down your list of pages ;). I hope WP:AVIATION/WP:AIRPORTS has been doing okay while I've been gone... Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I haven't forgotten your content work - it's the most important kind of contribution to the encyclopedia of course. The stuff I listed above is ideal for you to get your teeth into if you still want to take your chance in the snake pit some day.

@Worm: Bear in mind that there now appears to be a new trend for WMF employees to unilaterally overrule consensus reached by individual Wikipedias if they just don't like it - they are even quite uncivil about it too. Their reasons for doing this are wonky to say the least, but it seems there is nothing the volunteers can do about it because they just turn of the dialogue tap when they feel like it. I'm therefore rather beginning to feel that there is little to be gained by investing my time on larger policy issues. I'll give the 3,000/6 Minimum Requirement proposal a chance, but if the community supports it and the WMF refuses it I'll wash my hands of RfA reform, and any other Wikipedia improvement projects. I'll just concentrate on less controversial stuff, adding content, and using the admin tools on some non contentious deletions and blocks. I'm probably also going to get more involved in my work at OTRS, and do more SPI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being an admin

It's not really all about being an Admin. I'm perfectly happy not being an admin, and don't see a reason to become one unless there is an absolute need to. There are too many rules to being an admin, and I'm happy not being constantly watched by ARB, and then having my every move analyzed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Tofu, being an admin is not a big deal at all. The rules are the same as for any editor, it's just that admins are the ones who implement them with their tools. The only big deal is getting through the snake pit and coming out alive after 7 days with that set of tools. Nobody is watching every move every admin makes, many admins slip back into relative obscurity and gnome around with their tools in areas that are not contentious. It's not difficult to avoid accusations of bad practice, but it's also easy to make the occasional small mistake that will almost always be forgiven. Only those who don't have the right mindset but somehow passed their trial of fire, are going to be naughty and get caught out. And they do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely honest, I think one who has no yearn to be an admin, would make the best admin. (Like you!!). But as they say, ¿Quien Sabe? Adios, mi amigo. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sutherland page

Hello Kudpong,

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Before submitting the article I requested feedback according the instructions in the Wikipedia guidelines and unfortunately no one reviewed the article or provided me any help. When I first loaded it on to Wikipedia I got the feedback that it needed improving. I took it to a professional journalist who helped to improve it.

Now I hear from you that it may be deleted and I need to understand what the problems are with the article. All the claims we have made are factual and many of them have web references. I'm happy to impove the article or add/delete more information but I need help understand what the problem is with the article.

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide or perhaps you can direct me to someone else who can help, I have honestly worked very hard to make this article factual and well written I must admit I feel a bit discouraged that it's been marked for deletion with little constructive information on what needs to be done.

Please Help!

Thanks in advance,

EUSCYHE -Cynthia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euscyhe (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There are three tags at the top of the page which indicate the major issues with the article, so you should start with that. If you're having trouble, you can always ask a question at the help desk; I have done this myself, and you'll usually get a quick response. Alternatively, you can contact either me or Kudpung if you hit a wall, and we'd be more than happy to help you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Blade- I saw the comment on the top of the page but they were very general. There are a lot of references in the article and I added more. One of the comments is that the article may need to be wikified which I don't know what that means. I used the template. If you could take a look and give me more specific things which need to be improved, I am happy to do so. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euscyhe (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blade for looking after my talk page while I was at 37,000 feet in Airbus's new super jumbo. Unfortunately I was only travelling cattle-class, but it was the smoothest ride I ever had in 1000s of flights over the last 50 years (including those I have piloted myself ;)

Euscyhe, the quickest way to find out what all our mysterious terms such as 'Wikify' mean, is to follow the links that you have already been given on your talk page (all the blue words on Wikipedia are links to pages), but here is a quick link for that one already. And do please remember to read WP:TPG and sign your posts. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Wnc logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wnc logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school has apparently changed its name and logo and a new image has been uploaded by another editor. The above file is redundant and can be deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(WP:DTTR) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an auto-notification from Twinkle. Makes things easier if you have to tag something for deletion. :) Swarm ^{u / t} 19:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Sp33dyphil's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Lukep913's talk page.
Message added 01:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- Luke (Talk) 01:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing what someone's number is

Teamwork. :P You snatched it out from under me while I was undeleting to set it as A1. Annnnyway, keep up the good work, and cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/PTWS

If you're interested in a way to delete such stuff faster, there's a thread at the top of WT:CSD about a new criterion involving made-up subjects - more views are needed. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 03:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know - I've just added a comment in support of Alan's proposal for a CSD criterion fo products and services. What we have to remember however, is that there is not much to be gained by adding new criteria until we find a drastic solution to the immense problems surrounding NPP. Would you believe that they are now actually talking about allowing G10 attack pages to stay on line for up to 30 days? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, regarding that expansion of A7, I think it will be something like A9; much struggle will have taken place before it will only be partially done. To answer your question, I've asked Jorm to allow patrolling from the front of the queue, although I think the whole idea of the Zoom interface is giving incompetent patrollers a faster way to wreak havoc and destruction with the CSD process - and unlike Twinkle, we cannot blacklist them. What I truly believe is needed is a bot that does CSD tagging while the majority of the NPP force is asleep. →Σ τ c. 05:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly warming to your perspicacity - you're absolutely right about Zoom. Have you read the Bugzilla thread? You do realise of course who Jorm is ? Don't expect any leeway on this from the WMF, they are making a grand show of wanting screencasts of NPPers at work but they do appear to be most clearly not in the slightest bit interested in any comments or suggestions that do not concur 100% with their own ideas. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read from the first comment to around 50 (monospace gets hard to read after a while); Jorm or Mr. Harris or whatever you like's responses are expected of someone who is paid to promote new editors, but his solution doesn't really work. He's easier to talk to on IRC though. →Σ τ c. 05:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harris is, I believe, the Vice president of Wikipedia/WMF. His comments on the Bugzilla discussion were particulary scathing, caustic, and dismissive of the efforts made by dedicated highly experienced and mature volunteers - not what's needed to keep the good editors Wikipedia already has. The WMF printed some disinformation on a flyer that was distributed at this summer's Wikimania at Haifa, in an attempt to boost registrations and leave the door open to the creation of any pages whatsoever. The WMF apperars to be interested in taking the credit for a possible increase in newly registered accounts whether they are vandals, spammers, idiots, or whatever - it seems to be just the numbers that count. The misinformation was that 30% of Wikipedia's best editors began their Wikipedia careers as vandals. In fact, it was something around 0.1%. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry , I was wrong, Erik Möller, alias User:Eloquence is the VP. If you see his up at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence, it may explain why he has an apparent tendency to be blunt and rude. Brendon Harris, alias User:Jorm (WMF) at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Jorm_%28WMF%29 is a designer, largely responsible for user retention, but as he nearly caused me to retire in disgust, he's obviously not doing a very good job of it. Nevertheless, as always, these are first impressions, and I could be very very wrong about these people until I have met them personally. - Some people even think I am an asshole ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) With regards to the NFT criterion at WT:CSD, I think that page doesn't really reflect the community's thoughts on CSD. There are a few users with very conservative views about CSD who make the consensus there seem much more immutable than it actually is. I found WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC rather informative as to the actual number of people who want CSD to be a hermetic seal. As for the fight with the WMF; I'm surprised Jimbo hasn't taken some sort of stand on one side or the other. I think this is a rather important issue for Wikipedia, and I'm wondering how we can call his attention to this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo was willing to stake his reputation on Pending Changes being permanently adopted. He has been taking, understandably, a back seat on most issues ever since - which of course as a 'constitutional monarch' divested of executive powers, is all he actually can do. I get the impression that nobody (read 'WMF') really listens to him any more. It happens all the time: you create a new company, it becomes a success, someone comes along and does an aggressive take-over, out of respect they leave you with a position on the board but you are no longer the owner of your baby and there is bugger all you can do about the way they are going to ~~ruin~~ run things from now on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Article Help...

Hi Kudpung,

I am wondering if I can request your help in meeting the guidelines for publishing on Wikipedia as I'm a little confused. I know you deleted my last article submission and I was hoping to ask you some questions about it. I read through the notability and third-party guidelines and I do believe that my article is eligible - I'm wondering, though, if I just need to re-write the copy for it? I created a Wiki Talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SKLZ in hopes of receiving some feedback as well. I think the copy on this article is more suited for Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think and how I can best proceed. Thank you so much! Sawatdee Kaahhh!

Best,

Gabrielle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gclifford2011 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've had a quick look at the article draft at Articles For Creation. I do think it is still a Trade Directory piece, and hence an attempt to promote your organisation through the pages of our encyclopedia. it will however receive an expert review by the regular editors who work in that department. Depending on their verdict, the page will still need my permission, or that of another administrator before it can be published, because it has been deleted three times already for being an advert and not complying with our criteria for General Notability, particularly WP:ORG, and Reliables Sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:MessageDeliveryBot

Hello, I'm sorry that your message was not delivered in time. Would you still like to have it delivered? -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, it's now really quite urgent and it's too much for me to do manually. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the bot is delivering the message right now. Sorry for the delay. -- Nascar1996^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:

Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.

The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (News and progress from RfA reform 2011). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

MauchoEagle - User is blocked.
RetiredUser12459780 - User is blocked.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I smell sock

This sounds very familiar.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of notability request from GoatUp

Hi,

I removed the notability prod from GoatUp because both Minotaur Rescue and Minotron: 2112 have remained on the site for several months with no notability objections. Either Jeff Minter's iOS games are notable, or they are not: there is no apparent difference between them that would mean that those two were while GoatUp was not. Obviously if Minotaur Rescue had been prodded for notability I would have removed it and not written any of the further articles; I took the lack of a prod given a large amount of time as acceptance of such. Obviously I wouldn't have put time into writing the later articles if I knew they weren't wanted, so waiting for them to be written before deciding they're unwanted is unreasonable in my view. Prodding Minotaur Rescue at this point is really just immature: no-one else has had a problem with it since June, so why complain now just for the argument?

Hyphz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Um, "anything I can do to save it?" You're the one attacking it! If you want it to be saved, stop. There just aren't any peer-reviewed journals publishing documentation on video games that came out in the last month, and if its presence on the App Store and the listed reviews don't make it notable, then it isn't (but neither are many of the other iOS games that are listed - thus the consistency issue) Hyphz (talk)

Please keep your personal attacks to yourself - you will gain nothing with incivility and you may have noticed that I have already left a personal message on your talk page alongside the formal warnings. If the other articles have not been tagged it is entirely due to the breakdown in our New Page Patrol system that is currentky being resolved at the highest level by the WikiMedia Foundation. In order to avoid possible deletion, please provide Reliable Sources that assert notability as soon as possible. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Please rectify the problems with you signature.[reply]

I don't really think saying that "you're the one objecting" is saying anything negative about you as a person, but ok. What reliable sources would you accept? I added a review link to Kotaku, one of the best known gaming journalism sites. That apparently wasn't good enough. I'm fine to try and find something else, but I need to know what category you'd accept, within the limits that it is an iOS video game. Also, is there a general page of topics already deemed non-notable? If not, I think it would be a good idea for one to be created, so that people do not waste time writing articles that are doomed from the start. Hyphz (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG/RS is a good start. →Σ τ c. 19:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't make the rules here, but I have to implement them. WP:RS will tell you all you need to know about referencing and sourcing for notability. Getting software on sale at the AppStore is no big no big deal, I have some on sale there and reviewed in the editorial pages of 100s of computer magazines worldwide because I wrote the press releases - also no big deal. None of that complies with Wikipedia's criteria. Anyway, I don't see anyone tagging the articles yet for CSD, PROD, or AfD. The routine tags flag the articles so that someone else might know where to find WP:RS for them .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:VG/RS suggests that reviews establish notability, and I did post links to several reviews. Although they are on journalism sites, the articles linked to are reviews, not copies of press releases. Hyphz (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of WP:VG/RS suggest that some sources might establish notability. It needs to be used with discretion, but if you find that it accurately resolves your problem of referencing new video game articles, then you are home and dry. The time to really start worrying is when someone tags your article(s) for deletion, which hasn't happened yet, and it would be unlikely to be me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your recent note

Hello Kudpung. I received your message regarding the Jeff Minter game articles that I recently tagged for categorization and have written you a response here. -Thibbs (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your earlier post. I honestly thought you were trying to lecture me about tags and notability. I'm glad we reached an understanding. Happy editing. -Thibbs (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note

Wow, I found your user page(s) via an editor review of User:Σ. All I can say is you have given me a lot to think about. At this point, I don't even think of myself as someone who aspires to be an admin (though I am trying to learn as much about Wikipedia policy and procedures as I can and participate as much as possible), but I really appreciated your detailed rationale of what an admin should be and your look at the whole RfA process as a whole. The future of Wikipedia seems to be on everyone's minds recently. Quick request: I am already familiar with Snottywong's tools, but I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of a tool to evaluate decline rate of an editor's CSD tagging. My apologies if this should be apparent to me, but I tried searching around for it (including in your talk page archives) but was not able to locate it. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think there is a tool of the kind you mention. On the other hand, I'm not altogether sure of what kind of data you would like it to reflect. Do you mean your deleted edits that only admins are able to see? If it is for an evaluation of your page patrolling, you can of course look at your own user logs. If you think a tool would be useful, do describe what you want in detail, and I'll see if we can get SN to make one - particularly if it would help the WMFdevlopers who are currently looking at our suggestions to improve New page Patrolling. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a way track the percentage of pages for which a user placed a CSD tag which were speedily deleted afterwards, versus a speedy deletion nomination that was declined by an admin? I realize that you can look at things like CSD logs available through Twinkle to see which ones were nominated and now have redlinks, but of course that is not 100% accurate, since an article that received a speedy nom might have been speedily deleted but then recreated with a valid article, or a CSD nomination might have been declined, but then the article later be successfully PROD'd or AfD'd. Is there any way of assessing an editor's accuracy at CSD besides a manual analysis of something like a CSD log (assuming that a user chooses that option under Twinkle preferences). I say this more for myself because I would like to know the percentage of articles that are ultimately speedily deleted that have I tagged for CSD, to see if I am at all off-base in my tagging, and I was also curious how people arrive at an decline rate for CSD? You mention it (Item #11. <5% declined CSD at New Page Patrolling) in your criteria for admins. Moogwrench (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand. Well, only admins have access to that information because the deleted pages need to be viewed to see if your tag was accurate or not. For that reason, I don't think it's something that can be automated - at least not by a Snottywong tool without admin access for the bot. Nevertheless, the pages that get ultimately deleted will show up in red in your patrol log. If you were seriously consider running for RfA (which you are probably not yet), an admin would review your deleted edits as part of the RfA process. If you are worried about your CSD tagging, I can only suggest that you read the WP:NPP and WP:CSD pages over and over until you are sick of them ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I appreciate it! Moogwrench (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice, though, that the deletions follow a generic format "[[WP:CSD#criterion|criterion]]: short description". Couldn't the deletion reasons be searched and compared with the CSDlog, rather than looking at the page content itself? →Σ τ c. 07:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No quite sure what you mean, but it sounds interesting. Can you make a draft example in your sandbox and link me to it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could find all of the speedies that you nominated by searching through your edit summaries in the User talk namespace (to find all of the notices you posted on the authors' talk pages) and then compare that to your undeleted speedy deletion requests (the tool doesn't list deleted edits). HTH —SW— ^chat 00:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tags

Thanks for the heads up. I had tagged it as a hoax because I wasn't sure if it was a BLP violation or attack page. It read close to it, but I figured the Hungarian Medal of Honor stuff and the like was enough to warrant a G3 for a hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any BLP page that looks like a hoax and suggests that the subject killed 50 people in a rowboat must be deleted very quickly :) Attack templates leave a red alert on administrators' control panels. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learn something new everyday, thanks again for the insight! Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Monty845's talk page.
Message added 15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Monty ₈₄₅ 15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Looks like ACTRIAL finally got noticed at the signpost, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-26/News and notes. See also the talk page of that article, there's an extended rant going on there. —SW— ^verbalize 04:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who wrote that, but it's about time and it was exceptionally well written. It's full of journalistic bias in favour of improving relations with the WMF but it says what needed to be said. Nevertheless, I guess the WMF will understand that their response to the Bugzilla request was not the way to go about retaining the services of the dedicated and experienced volunteers. However, they have taken note, and the vice CEO of the WMF and the developers are conferencing with me by Skype tomorow, so progress - of some kind - is in the air. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

woohoo!

Well, thank you Joe! BTW, I hope you didn't mind my recent comments about the BLPPROD ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go crazy

Look at Keepscases oppose vote here: [1]. I'm on the breaking point. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I think this time it might go to higher places, but I'm going to try and stay in the background, try to stay cool about it and not let it upset your other work here again. BTW, did you get the mails I sent you? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't. Where have you been sending them to? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested "Wikipedia's Email User" feature and it doesn't seem to work..(but I got other emails from Wikipedia)...you should know my direct email address, right? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was sent to your aol account. I will be busy for the next hour, but if you want to call me in an hour or so you're most welcome to do so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try sending it directly, not through WP. <redacted for privacy>. Compose a new email; and just paste your response in. If that still fails; I have another address you can try. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decision regarding Reichman

Hi Kudpung,

In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman: I have re-written the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman citing references from Wall Street Journal, News Limited (News.com.au, a subsidiary of News Limited)Womens Mafia and fashion-maga-zine.

I am doing this because the article as it previously stood when you commented on it was 4 lines without notable sources as references.

Will you please look at the article now please?

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

At this stage it's best to allow the AfD to take its course and let the community decide whether or not this article meets our criteria and is wanted in the encyclopedia. That said, I think you have probably done all you can there to defend the article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Steven Zhang's talk page.
Message added 01:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Try now. 99.103.110.162 (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's Tofu. It keeps logging me out on my phone. 99.103.110.162 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG - still using a phone to work on Wikipedia? I thought you had got the problems sorted out with the use of the family computer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have; but I happened to be checking Wikipedia from my phone at that moment (I wasn't at the house). Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your continued help is needed

Hey Kudpung, sorry I didn't get your message on Meta until now -- I need to put one of those templates that say to contact me on en.wiki. I'd be glad to help out. When is your meeting, I hope I'm not too late. If I'm reading your request correctly, you'd like quarterly (3 month) visualizations of the relative categories of speedy deletions (A7, G1, etc) in terms of the number of articles created during that 3 month time period. So you could see, for example (making data up right now) that between Q3 2009 and Q3 2011 there has been a steady 3% per quarter increase in articles deleted for A7, with a corresponding decrease in articles deleted for G1? I'm imagining a line plot that contains each of the major CSD rationales, fluctuating up or down over time as certain rationales get more and less popular. What do you think? Also, can you use a {{Talkback}} template on my user talk page for the most prompt response? Stu ^(aeiou)_{I`m Researching Wikipedia} 18:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stu, thanks for getting back to me. The meeting concentrated on setting up the best lines of approach to the problems of unwanted new pages, with emphasis on the way New Page Patrolling done and can be improved. The data you are working on is essential, and will be a great help in reaching our conclusions. Let me know any time you have a beta of the table and charts ready, and I'll let you know if it needs any other tweaks. Thanks again for all your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New Page Patrolling

Hi, thanks. I was almost sure that it was vandalism, but I always try to tone things down to avoid confrontations. In any case, the article would get deleted, right? Ratibgreat (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would get deleted, yes, but there is currently a drive at WMF level to reduce the flux of inappropriate pages. Accurate tagging is therefore imperative for various automations, stats, and deletion categories. Keep up the good work, but be sure to apply the correct tag :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arright :). Ratibgreat (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

Hey Kudpung,

I'd like to personally thank you for keeping Wikipedia clean by deleting the article Small And Medium Enterprise(SME) exchange/platform and its subsequent renditions by Examsandacademics. At this point, let me introduce myself. I am a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador in charge of guiding this aforementioned user who happens to be a student taking part in the Wikipedia:India Education Program. Hence, please do consider my assurance that I shall talk to this user personally and make sure he understands how he has violated Wikipedia policy. For any further clarifications you can revert back to me or any of the Campus Ambassadors participating in this program. I implore you to not unblock him until he has apologized to you for his copyvio and I get a chance to speak to him and make sure he has understood his copyvio. However, if he still does violate copyright again, feel free to re-block him at your discretion. However, as he is a student, just understand that this is not an intended act of vandalism, he's just trying to work on his assignment as has possibly taken a wrong route. I request a little bit of leniency. For any clarifications whatsoever, please feel free to revert back to me on my talk page.

Regards, Debastein1 (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]