User talk:Kudpung/Archive Sep 2017

Wordpress article

Hi Kudpung, many thanks for the swift action on the Wordpress article and their authors. I was wondering if What Everybody Else Does When It Comes To Michael Kors And What You Need To Be Doing Different: Revision history could be related. Similar style of title and contents (different topic), username of author also styled similarly. I checked the link provided - the page seems not to trigger any warnings, but I'll remove the URL now anyway. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Jake. Deleted and blocked. I don't think it's related to the stuff I found though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Let me know if there's anything I can help with your investigation. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled status

Hi, I'm not sure if there's some formal procedure for asking for autopatrolled status for another user, but I follow much of what Abu Shawka does in the way of article creation and editing (because his areas of interest are largely a subset of mine) and have every confidence in him as an editor. I ask this because this comment suggests to me that the reviewer is actually less knowledgeable than Abu Shawka, which makes it seem odd to me that the one is reviewing the other. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I'll take a look. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've often wondered about that reviewer. X-tools is not working properly at the moment but as soon as it up again I'll check Abu out and accord Autopatrolled if appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Rebecca returns

Hi, I'm a friend of Wesley Wolf's and I've noticed that one of the IP addresses, 100.11.59.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who you previously blocked for three months has become active again in the areas where they are banned, particularly the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. I would have reported them again, but I'm less familiar with policy on blocking sockpuppets given the original block wasn't indefinite, so I thought I would take the matter to you and let you deal with it. Thanks. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 22:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirects being changed into articles

While patrolling the back of the backlog, I've noticed articles appearing there that are redirects recently converted into articles (sometimes content forks) or disambiguation pages (often legitimate). I am pretty sure this is because I have redirects turned off on my page curation list. It worries me however, that this is also likely happening with other redirects that are not on the list of unreviewed articles. If these are not put onto the NPP list, they might not get checked at all and this would represent a major security breach for paid editors and other POV pushers. Is there another way that these articles can easily be found (i.e. redirects modified to be anything other than redirects)? If not, I propose that we suggest a change to page curation, or a bot, that automatically logs pages that are converted redirects as 'unreviewed'. Any ideas? or is there something I've missed that makes this unnecessary? — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 02:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Insertcleverphrasehere. I'm pinging TonyBallioni on this because I have to go out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Insertcleverphrasehere, any redirect that is converted into an article gets sent to the new pages feed. As an example, if I recall correctly recently a French presidential candidate got redirected to one Adolf Hitler and when the vandalism was undone, she was in the new pages. We routinely get complaints about this by new reviewers at WT:NPR, but as you explained, there's a good reason for it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear. I wasn't sure if that was the case or if these articles I was noticing were simply redirects that had already been on the unreviewed list. Thanks! — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 02:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

History

The principle investment partnership of Thumb Capital is a continuation of a fund that has been in operation since January 1, 1988.

Dr. Seeta Kulkarni page marked for deletion

Hi - Dr. Seeta Kulkarni (1915-1999) passed away in 1999. Couple of questions, how do we change the page to be for Late Dr. Seeta Sakharam Kulkarni and what are the rules of biography in this case. If you search for "Seeta Sakharam Kulkarni" in books.google.com you will find Dr. Seeta Kulkarni's reference in "Who's who of Indian Writers 1999" by Sahitya Akademi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahitya_Akademi) page 640. As you can see she has extensive publications in Marathi language. Here are some details:

Kulkarni, Seeta Sakharam (Smt). K. Vinaya. Marathi writer M.A; B,ED.; PH.D. (all Poona Univ.). Hindi Shikshak Sanad; C.P.ED. (Govt. of Maha.). b.17.7.1915, Kendu, Pune Dist,. Maha. Teaching, retd Teacher, now freelance writing. mt. Marathi. Pubs. 6. Bhaktiparna, 93 (poetry); Ramayan, 90 (crit); Krantiveer Jairam Baba, 73; Vadal Kanya, 94 (both biog.) Visited USA in personal capacity. Add. 1353, Shukrawar Peth, Natu Bagh, opp. Bharat Bhavan, Pune-411002, Maharashtra.

Dr. Seeta Kulkarni was a teacher at MES Waghire High School early in her career (1945-1955). Recently on August 20th 2017 a new auditorium and a division of technical education was dedicated in the name of Dr. Seeta Kulkarni at MES Waghire High School Saswad India (https://www.facebook.com/meswhs).

Please advise how to proceed. Thanks.

Jitendra

All you need to do is edit the page and provide reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:CITE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

And do note that "Who's Who" publications do not qualify as reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Mohamed Sohail - Page deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I did not create that article with an intention to promote myself or any of my articles that I have written. The article was pure facts, stating who I am and what I do. The main reason I created the article was that as a sports Journalist, I apply for accreditations for several reasons such as to cover a match or to get an interview with someone of high status. The first thing the organisers do is to do a background check on me simply by doing a Google search. Many times the process for accreditation has been delayed due to the fact that my name isn't really out there on the internet, which forced them to ask me for my credentials for proof that I am a Journalist. This article will help me and the media officers out there to see my full data which is full of facts that had been supported by evidence.

And unfortunately, ThatSohailGuy, that's precisely the reason why we're not going to let you have a page on Wikipedia. Consider using social media instead, such as LinkedIn or Face. Better still, build your own website on an online builder in 30 minutes, and get it it hosted for only $3 a month. Sorry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I see you've been already blocked by another admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Question on External Link

Hi Kudpung - I updated Seeta Kulkarni page based on your suggestions. The automated bot reverted my edits because of External Links I included. The two links included were: "Who's who of Indian Writers 1999" by Sahitya Akademi The Official MES Waghire High School, Saswad Facebook Page I have seen similar linked used in other Wikpedia pages. Can you confirm that these links comply with the policies and advice next steps. Thanks for your help. Jitendra

FaceBook is not a reliable source and will be automatically removed. That leaves the article without any sources and it will probably be deleted. The article also needs to be written in proper English, but perhaps wait for the outcome of the deletion discussion before sending any time on it apart from finding sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Jaymie

Greetings, I would like to request the following page be restored please:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaymie_Valentine

I am happy to help if needed. Thank you. Jellypony (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:REFUND. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but no, Jellypony. The article has been specifically blocked against recreation. You are welcome to go ahead and create a new article from scratch as a WP:Draft, but it would not be appropriate for the original author to take the credit for any of the content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)a

A classic

[1] — fortunavelut luna 09:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not directly related, but [2]. — fortunavelut luna 17:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Reason for blocking this IP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.77.91.207 it has a block but no reason why it was blocked Flow 234 (Nina) talk 22:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. No reason was published. Arbcom is aware of the issue. Thank you for your interest in administrative matters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock FYI

Hi, Kudpung, I see you blocked IP 2601:5cc:101:5deb:18ec:4581:cb9c:8828, used by Kumioko, for three months. Good call, of course. Generally, a whole /64 range will be allocated to a single user, and in this case it's obvious that all the edits from the 2601:5CC:101:5DEB::/64 range are from the same person. One of those edits was made after your block.[3] I've blocked the whole range, also for three months. Regards, User:Bishonen | talk 07:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. Thank you for this. Note however that careful reading of the current threads at WT:RfA will show that I never inferred anywhere that this was Kumioko. That idea, which nevertheless may not be entirely false, was made by another user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course. No, I made the inference from myself. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC).

Not wrongly, of course, Bishonen. Frankly I think all posts coming from him should be deleted. He's banned by the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

French translation request

Hi -- you're listed as being willing to translate from French to English, so I wonder if I could trouble you to look at a sentence for me -- my French is fairly weak. The sentence (which refers to some failed glacier drilling by Louis Agassiz in the 1840s) is "Digne d'éloges, ils n'ont cependant guère servi qu'à décourager les glaciéristes: les difficultés de l'entreprise leur parurent insurmontables, alors qu'une technique défectueuse leu en exagerait seulement l'importance." Google Translate gives me "They were, however, praiseworthy, but served little to discourage the glaciers: the difficulties of the undertaking seemed insurmountable to them, whereas a faulty technique would only exaggerate their importance." One correction I can make is that "glaciéristes" should be "glaciologists". What I can't tell is whether Flusin is saying that the glaciologists were a little discouraged, or were not discouraged significantly. I can't tell whether "them" refers to Agassiz or the glaciologists referred to; and I don't understand the point of the last clause. If you have time, I'd really appreciate your help with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Google is getting good. The machine translation is fairly accurate and with good prose. A glaciériste is an alpinist/mountaineer specialised in climbing glaciers and frozen waterfalls. exagérait is the present conditional which translates as would which in the larger context (I don't know the story) would appear correct (pun not intended). I don't know who 'they' refers to - mountain guides? I would need the full text to competently claim that translation is perfectly accurate. Like me, Google can't second guess what Flusin is saying; his French which was written over 100 years ago is very different from modern French. For an analogy, compare Charles Dickens' 18th C English with what we write today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree some context—at least the preceding sentence—would be very helpful, on several counts. I guess “them” to be someone who informed the drillers of the faulty technique, possibly with a constructive (hence “praiseworthy”) suggestion for improvement—but that’s only a guess. At any rate, I‘m pretty sure “served little to discourage the glaci[ologist]s” is wrong: ne … guère is “scarcely” but ne … guère … que is usually “nothing but”. So my (tentative) reading is that the researchers were discouraged, their technical problem being the proverbial last straw. (Shouldn’t “leu” be “leur”? That might have confused Google somewhat.)—Odysseus1479 22:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I'm surprised Google is that good! Here's the whole paragraph, which I think is all the context that's needed:

Les premiers essais de sondages profonds furent effectués sur l'Unteraagletscher; ils sont dus à Agassiz et remontent à 1840-1842. Digne d'éloges, ils n'ont cependant guère servi qu'à décourager les glaciéristes: les difficultés de l'entreprise leur parurent insurmontables, alors qu'une technique défectueuse leur en exagerait seulement l'importance. Au cours de ses trois campagnes, Agassiz employa uniquement le procédé par "percussion". Aprés avoir, dans ses deux premières campagnes, perfectionné sa méthode, il réussit, en 1842, à forer, en six semaines, un trou de 8 centiètres de diamètre et de 60 mètres de profondeur: les frais et les ennuis furent tels qu'il abandonna ses recherches dans cette voie et que personne ne songea à les reprendre.

I'm working on History of scientific ice drilling, and there's a remarkably long gap in the literature between Agassiz's attempts to drill through a glacier in the 1840s (via "percussion", which means hammering at the ice, rather than cutting with a rotating drill) and the next recorded scientific drilling efforts in ice. What I would expect this to mean is something like "Agassiz's efforts were praiseworthy, but did little except discourage other glaciologists, who thought the difficulties of the undertaking seemed insurmountable, although the faulty technique [that Agassiz employed] made the situation seem worse than it was." But I can't be sure it says that. What I would like to add to the article is a sentence saying "Agassiz's demonstration of the great difficulty of drilling deep holes in glacier ice discouraged other researchers from further efforts in this direction, and it was decades before further advances were made in the field". I don't think I quite have support for that yet, though, unless this paragraph says that. (post ec): Odysseus1479, your reading is a bit more encouraging! What do you think of the whole paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike, 'They' are the premiers essais. So I would interpret the source language to mean:

Although praiseworthy, they hardly served to encourage the glaciologists....

The old, clumsy (by today's standards of prose) guère/qu'à contruction as explained by Odysseus1479 also concurs with my iterpretation. Therewith also revealing the word glaciéristes to mean 'glaciologists' in this context rather than adventure climbers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping for. Thank you very much for your help! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike, You have the support you need for 'it was decades before further advances were made in the field' in et que personne ne songea à les reprendre = 'nobody considered/bothered continuing with it.' Well done for writing such a complex article and such care for sourcing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, my guess was off base; “they” are clearly the first attempts, creditable but discouraging. The French Wiktionary indeed says glaciériste is obsolete, superseded by glaciologue. If writing a direct translation, I would replace “importance” with “significance” (or, in keeping with the old-fashioned style, “import”): notable for consequence more than magnitude. Regarding Google, I believe its algorithms work on phrases or clusters of collocations, producing less disjointed, more idiomatic-seeming results than word-by-word translations. AFAICT it‘s barely less prone to get the wrong end of the stick, but much better at producing a plausible-sounding reading.—Odysseus1479 01:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) last fall Google introduced a new AI-based translation system. this longish NYT piece from last December talks about it; here is a post from Google last fall describing it Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Jytdog. Interesting reading - both articles. My company's product and services has nothing to do with linguistics per se, but our ability to meet the unique multicultural client base in our region has put us in the forefront of our branch of industry in Thailand. I'm the only polyglot in the firm, but our sales office staff are now able (after I trained them) to handle hundreds of email enquiries in many languages. All thanks to Google. Downside? All the traditional translating agencies are fighting for survival. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

you trained people to use google translate or how to be fluent enough to be dangerous? just curious! Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A little bit of both, I guess ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

:) Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Advice

So, if i understand i gotta create pages to those not notable groups? But if those groups are not notable enough to have pages, what should i do? (i'm asking for advice, not war ...)

see the banner at the top of of this page. Please smarten up your language when you discuss matters here (as you have been warned elsewhere) and treat Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia and not as a list of your favourite K-pop bands. In short there is nothing you can do other than write Wikipedia articles about them that will pass our notability standards. You have been asked also many times : please sign your posts.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - The Eaton House Group of Schools

Sorry to bother you, I just want some clarification on this: It says in WP:WikiProject Schools in reference 2 that 'Elementary/primary, and UK prep schools do not normally qualify for Wikipedia articles and will generally be merged by an experienced editor to their respective school district (USA), or locality page'. In this case then, would you say this article is notable? Would it qualify for deletion, or does this represent an exception? I am asking you due to your Coordinator status on WP:WikiProject Schools. Thanks! One Of Seven Billion (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi One Of Seven Billion, The place to ask is really WT:WPSCH where it would attract more opinion. Firstly, however, it is debatable whether this is about a group of schools or about the company that owns them. Secondly, In both cases the article suffers from one major misconception: that a plethora of just any sources on the Internet - including obscure sources in Italian news websites - amounts to notability. Controlling the 89 so called references is a time sink to the voluntary work of our editors, and most patrollers on seeing such a list will be alerted and will olny check the first five or so before tagging for deletion. The effort in this article has clearly been to provide the non notable primary schools with a 'quality' Wikipedia pagei, while circumventing the Wikipedia accepted norm that primary schools of any kind are not notable in the sense of being eligible for a stand-alone in our encyclopedia. As a company, it is really nothing out of the ordinary and has done nothing exceptional to justify an article about it. The mentions in the sources are routine reports about activity on the financial market. Finally, the article as it stands now, has the ring of a desperate attempt to get its subject (either the holding, or the schools, or both) into Wikipedia with the object of promoting it/them. It also has all the hallmarks of a work commissioned by the schools' owners and is likely to be listed at WP:COIN where it will probably be deleted or at best, reduced to the stub it was here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

And now German

I went to look for help with German, and you were listed there too, so if you don't mind I have another translation question; my German is worse than my French. The table on p. 69 of this source has some headings I don't understand. What is the difference between Randgebiet and Achsiales Gebiet? And what are the two columns underneath them? I think Bohrung must be the depth of the drilled hole. Is "den Profilen" the expected depth of the hole, based on some calculation? The background is that these holes were drilled to try to establish the thickness of the glacier, and Blümcke and Hess may well have calculated, or had some other grounds for expecting, a certain depth to the bed of the glacier. Another possible issue is that not every hole they drilled actually reached the glacier bed -- mechanical problems sometimes prevented them completing a hole. Perhaps the two columns indicate the difference between the depth of the hole and the depth of the base of the glacier, so the difference is essentially how close they got to the bed. Or perhaps the table only lists the holes that did reach the bed.

Anyway, any help you (or a TPS) can give me would be great. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC) With a bit more work I now think the "den Profilen" is their calculated depths; and Randgebiet/Achsiales Gebiet are holes drilled at the edges of the glacier and in the middle. I still can't tell if this is a list of holes that reached the bed of the glacier, though, so if you can see a clue to that it would be very helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Mike, the source you linked to is not available online. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

That's weird -- it works for me. I think I mostly figured it out, though; thanks anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Mike: I get this 'This item is not available online ( Limited - search only) due to copyright restrictions. Learn More »' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:: I can see it; probably restricted due to Kudpung's locale. Gebiet is "area", Rand is "rim" used to modify as "peripheral-", achsiales, now spelled axiales, is "axial-". Modern dictionary gives Randgebiet as "fringe" or "outskirts". So the two columns are literally peripheral area and axial area. But that doesn't seem to help much. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Going back and re-reading your post, I think your surmise that "holes drilled at the edge [periphery] of the glacier and in the middle [axis]" matches the German pretty well. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Randgebiet is primarily used in a geographical sense but is also used for an activity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks -- Bri left a translation of a couple of paragraphs on my talk page, and I think it's now as clear as we can get it. Thanks for your help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Unfortunately, OTRS is backlogged again and I just now I'm responding to a ticket ticket:2017081610011261 relating to Cambridge International School, Cambridge. This is just a heads up to let you know that I told them that the situation seems currently under control and while they can write to us if problems re-emerge, realistically we don't have our backlog under control and directly contacting you would be advisable. Is let me know if this is not acceptable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. All I know about this is the short discussion on Talk:Cambridge International School, Cambridge. There is not much I can do in my capacity as an admin without knowing more. Unfortunately I don't have access to OTRS because my permission was removed due to inactivity (ironically while I was in the middle of handling a case), and by all accounts it's very difficult to get this permission back even for admins and trusted users, so I never bothered about OTRS since. With all respect to yourself, I don't think OTRS is generally well managed, particularly as paid spammers are allowed to have OTRS status. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You probably know that I'm not permitted to go into details without getting permission from the people who emailed us. It is my opinion that you do not need to know any more; I thought your advice was spot on but if the incident doesn't go away and reoccurs, I will look into getting you additional information but if you were to guess at the contents of the email you would almost certainly be right.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, Sorry if I did not express myself well, I wasn't actually asking you to provide more details. In fact the article is a stub and there hasn't been any movement there since 17 Aug. I don't have a clue who has contacted OTRS or what they might be requesting. All schools are on my watchlist and if anything gets put in there that shouldn't be there, John and I are pretty quick to remove it. Let me know if I can help though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick.Sphilbrick.Can we just put an edit note at the top of every school article "We don't care who diddled who, please don't add it to the article"? Because pretty much, we're gonna have to rethink BLP or spend inordinate amounts of time fighting with outraged children and parents.John from Idegon (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Dye & Durham Corporation Wikipedia Page

Hello

We're trying to create a Wikipedia page for Dye & Durham Corporation located in Toronto. It is a 143 year old legal tech company and the page was deleted after creation. Can you please advise on the right process to do this? I have trimmed down all verbiage that may seem promotional but there is definitely something I've been missing. Please help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashrajdhillon (talk • contribs) 14:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yashrajdhillon, this is clearly a commissioned work and an attempt to enhance the subject's image through presence on Wikipedia. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The company is not just in Toronto but in BC to for sure because I've used them lots. They have a corner on many land titles issues. Probably a notable topic, but let someone disinterested write it up. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. My concern is with promotion and paid editing. Operating strictly within our policies and guidelines I'll do anything in my powers of persuasion and tools to stamp it out. I'm sick of people enriching themselves and their clients on the back of my and others' volunteer time developing and maintaining this encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's see if WP:ACTRIAL makes a difference. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Central American Americans and South American Americans

These terms do exist, just look them up on google. Otherwise they can just be retitled.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Bluedot Technology Ltd.

solve this issue this is incorporation register company...Ismailim (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Solve it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Worcester, your starter for ten... ;) — fortunavelut luna 14:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Bamber? Whew, that's going back a bit - 30 years. Paxman's been doingit for over 20. Still one of my favourite shows> Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I know it - Toxteth O'Grady - USA! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Young Ones never appealed to me although Bambi was one of the better episodes. I found TYO humour a bit OTT and macabre for my taste. I prefer stuff that is slightly more subtle: Python, Fawlty, and Black Adder. I developed my thing for Brit humour in the radio days of Spike, Bentine, Secombe.I used to do a fair bit of silly acting myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of the trolling on my page. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 15:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your hardwork throughout the years advocating for WP:ACTRIAL, which is now live, you've earned this. I think everyone who is involved with the project recognizes that it wouldn't have happened without you. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL is a great day for Wikipedia and even though it took an impossible amount of determination to finally get this measure implemented, you've done it. All of Wikipedia is better off thanks to your contribution. Esquivalience (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

hooray hooray!!! Thank you for your persistence. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Third this. Heh, remember when I proposed EXTRIAL? DrStrauss talk 10:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Hear hear. MER-C 12:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You earned it! ACTRIAL is live and it is largely because you were so diligent for so long to make it happen. Thank-you for your service Kudpung. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much @Legacypac, Esquivalience, TonyBallioni, and Jytdog: for the kind words, The people to thank also are all those who voted on the original RFC way back in the day, and Scottywong and The Blade of the Northern Lights who helped craft it. It's been a long road and this is a milestone in the history of Wikipedia whatever the conclusion will be in 6 months time.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your comment about Line Madder

Hi, Kudpung. What part of WP:NPP are you suggesting I need to bone up on? If you have thoughts about how someone else's performance could improve, it's more helpful to be specific than to point vaguely to a very long page, at least most of which the other person probably knows pretty well and has been applying for a long time.

As far as my approach to this article goes, it was a matter of logistics. If I hadn't noticed the copyright problem, I would likely have thought, "This is so promotional", and possibly gone the G12 route. But, as I'm sure you know, if one is able to remove the promotional material in an article without deleting the whole thing, then one isn't supposed to use G12. So, if I had applied G12, there may be admins out there who would have denied it on the grounds that the article could have been trimmed to resolve the promotion problem.

One can use G12 in conjunction with other speedy deletion criteria that apply to the non-promotional parts of an article, but I didn't see that any applied to the portion outside of the synopsis. I would have instantly applied something like A7 or A9 if it were available for books, but there isn't such a thing. So that's why I dealt with the synopsis as a {{copyvio}} matter, and PRODded the article based on the remainder, in an attempt to avoid wasting everyone's time here. (By the way, even if I'd speedied the article, don't you think that one of the throng above would have removed it?)

Did I miss something obvious or did I just happen to come at this from a different angle than you did and proceed reasonably based on my assessment of the situation? Largoplazo (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt very much if one had tagged it for both CSD-G12 and COPYVIO that anyone would have declined the CSD. It's the kind of page that I and several other admins might even be inclined to delete unilaterally if I were on patrol. If I had been the first editor to visit the AfD I would have speedied it without further ado. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do incorporate my recollection of past experiences as I carry out my patrolling. If anything, I was just being conservative. I've also been slammed by admins for A7-ing articles that they feel have made a claim of significance—sharply discounting, in my opinion, the applicability of the word "credible" that qualifies that phrase in the guideline. But, anyway, sometimes I err on the side of playing it safe. Largoplazo (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no harm in erring on the side of caution, but Line Madder was a bit blatant - and just look at all the socks now - someone is really tying hard to sell their book.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I can tell that now! Hindsight 50-50. :-) Regards, Largoplazo (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

For your willingness to "take charge"

	General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor
	For whatever work you've done with WP:ACTRIAL, I am most impressed by your willingness to take charge of the situation. The General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor was originally designed by Xiong to recognize this sort of leadership. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

New Tools

You mentioned that there are new tools on my request for New page reviewer I am just curious what I am missing out on. Or any advice on what to look at. Thanks Krj373 (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krj373-NR (talk • contribs)

Krj373-NR, Check out WT:NPR and WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: 1927 St. Louis – East St. Louis tornado review

 Done: URLs for the article all cleaned up. Thanks.--Halls4521 (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this is your bailiwick

What's the current thinking on new editors diving head first into doing revert patrol? At one point I think (fuzzy memory) you were trying to figure out a way of actively preventing that; I think I disagreed at the time, but I've come around. If someone with 250 edits is doing a poor job, do I have to threaten them with a disruptive editing block? Or can I point to some guideline or policy or project page that clearly lays out how much experience we expect recent changes patrollers to have?

If I'm confused (for example, now I'm thinking maybe you were more involved in new page patrol than recent changes patrol), then sorry for the orange bar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Floq. I don't have anything to do with recent changes. If there were a way of stopping people patrolling, it would be good. At the moment, for NPP I use a set of uw-templates I designed. Sometimes the work, sometimes they don't. I don't believe I've ever actually blocked anyone for for poor patrolling - except maybe for a total troll - but I've sent a couple to ANI to be T-banned. I think with ACTRIAL I'll be having to use them more often. See them at

• {{Stop NPP}}
• {{Stop NPP 2}}
• {{Stop NPP 3}}
• {{Stop NPP 4}}

You could copy them and modify them for use on other kinds of patrollers. You just need to remember who you templated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, after I started typing I started doubting it was recent changes. Thanks for the links, I may well copy and tweak them for my own use. (Or I may revert to type, and start threatening to block people.) Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Revision hiding?

Over at User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof, I believe the edit note on the first revision by the current LTA probably needs hidden. However, the revision itself is already hidden, which appears to stop me from being able to additionally hide the edit note, requiring an oversighter. Am I missing something? -- ferret (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

No, Ferret, you're not missing anything. I believe there is a bug in the Revdel tool. It's been happening several times recently but I'm so busy I haven't bothered to report it. Because Drmies name was mentioned, perhaps we can get him to fully oversight the whole string of foul edits and also range block the user's IP and look for sleepers. For some reason NorthBySouthBaranof's tp has been getting these attacks for years. I don't know what he does to deserve it. I have an inkling of who it might be but I would need to know if the IP is based in or near Richmond Va. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I just realized the revision itself is still visible too, only the user name was hidden, once Drmies can take a look. I'll head back over to watching AIV for a bit longer tonight. :) -- ferret (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who stands up to defend other people from trolls gets targeted by trolls themselves; that's the long lesson of life on the Internet, and on Wikipedia it is no less true. I appreciate the effort from all y'all to mop up the mess. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Letscasks. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ferret, I also mentioned this issue to GorillaWarfare a few days ago but I don't know if she did anything about it. I come across a lot of this kind of thing. I wish I could do more about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted to make sure I didn't press the wrong link or something. -- ferret (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ferret, you can't do much wrong even if you did press the wrong button. What you do as an admin you can always revert. Only a troll would chide you for making a genuine mistake. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoops sorry, I didn't mean it that way. :) I meant more like I went to the wrong place for what I wanted to do, not that I would be making a mistake. -- ferret (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The troll is still at it. The Revdel still doesn't seem to be working properly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Because life is better with kitties, on Wikipedia as with the world. (Unless you're allergic to them, in which case... uh, whoops, sorry!)

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Hello again.

Judging from your activity in a variety of areas, I realize the low importance of this issue. But if you get a chance, I can't decide what to do with Fibre mastic asphalt. It seems to be created by a SPA and is probably promotional, and has no references. But it's not over-the-top so probably not a CSD. PROD would be removed, and it was tagged for MERGE (which has not generated any discussion, but we can't MERGE unreferenced material anyway). Looking for sources, I've found a couple of technical papers discussing fiber in asphalt - [4] and [5]. I could tag it with "unreferenced" and "notablility" which would probably linger for years, or seek broader discussion at AFD. I'm usually not hesitant to go to AFD, but my gut says this may be a "no consensus". If you don't want to spend any more time on this than you have already done by reading this, I'll just have to decide. MB 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi MB, I agree it's difficult to know what to do with it. Here's another one with an identical problem: Stone mastic asphalt, created by a sock ten years ago and has a very similar layout. My gut feeling says it's the same author but there's no way of knowing. It's not a COPYVIO but Google returns hits for sites in Malay language so it could be a translation. I would suggest removing the merge tag and PRODing it. That would test if the author is still around. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I see the similarities between the two articles. The creator of Fibre mastic asphalt is still around (they edited it about two weeks ago), so I'm fairly confident a PROD will be removed. How did you relate the two? You can't have a summary of 5 million articles in your head!

MB, the creator might still be around so the best thing to do is remove the merge tag and PROD it. If/When the PROD gets removed you can send it to AfD where it will probably get deleted. If you need any help don't hesitate to ask me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments on SPhilbrick's talk page

Kudpung, I'm honestly not sure if I should echo your comments back to you about careful reading, or apologize for inadvertently implying something towards you. Let's just assume that text is liable to miscommunication and faulty presumptions. My comments about wikilawyering, I though I had made clear, were directed to another editor. I think it is clear whom. After re-reading, I can see how there could be other interpretations. In any event, I obviously need not lecture you and I would ask in return for similar courtesy. I understand your intent, and I thank you for it. I don't think that there needs to be any further preservation of that former effort, no matter what the namespace. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my article

Thank you so much for reviewing my article Gaura Census Town without writing improvement remarks. Actually I had Autopatrolled flag but was removed at ANI as I had created the article of Sidharth Slathia which was salted formerly and some copyvio concerns which I swear I didn't did intentionally, though I had properly attributed the quotes but used it excessively which I regret. I created Slathias article as it passed WP:MUSICBIO criteria number 1 and had strong in-depth reliable coverage by Indian news media Hindustan Times, and I have requested it's move on the article of Slathia's talk page. Anyways sir thanks for devoting your valuable time in reviewing my article. Anoptimistix (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2017

Additional comment - Admin SpacemanSpiff wrote at ANI that I write poor quality of articles despite creating numerous articles, I was initially hurt because of that. But as you reviewed my article without passing improvement remarks I felt I am going at right path and my contributions are well accepted. I had created that article per WP:GEOFEAT (populous and legally recognized). Thanks Kudpung once again, Regards. Anoptimistix (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Case of obvious peacocking and deliberately misinterpreting source

I had brought this case at ANI, but was criticised as the user was blocked at that time, I had a valid reason for it, please see the last and clear warning with evidences given by Admin Swarm to them [6] , but as they are now unblocked they again rewrote the word "greatest" and removed the maintenance tag "fansite" on Ahmed Rushdi's article, please see diff [7]. They have also added another unverified puffery after they got unblocked please see this [8] , they have deliberately cited a reliable source (Times of India) which never supported the statement, the same disruptive editing and decieving concerns were expressed about the user by prolific admin Swarm. Is this appropriate as the user is aware of peacock guide and is here for 6 years, clearly knows what is encyclopedic and what is not. The source Times of India [9], never supported that statement in their coverage, despite knowing about it they have cited it to support the puffery. Kudpung if you think it's fine thanks please ignore this message

And from the above provided evidence my suspicion stands true. Anoptimistix (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

Anoptimistix, I don't know what to make of it all. Having lived and worked in South Asia (India) I realise that it is normal there to use flowery language and peacock terms but of course we can't do that on the English Wikipedia. One of the sources seems correct but the TOI appears to have nothing to do with the subject. Certainly he has a very troubled editing history but I'll let Swarm decide what to do, as he is more familiar with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)--@Anoptimistix:--Can't you just leave UmairAij (irrespective of the validity of his actions)?You raised the very same thread at Spiffy's page. And even if you have to post these type of threads, can't you be concise and to the point? We don't have a natural liking for admin-shopping and given that the ANI thread raised a lot many unanswered queries about your editing activities and two of your rights were subsequently revoked; is not it better that you stop posting these type of threads--asking for blocks of a part. editor, at least for the time being?Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric You are very good human as well as good editor so I will surely reply ! I have presented the evidence, this was clear deception, the user have deliberately used Times of India as it is considered as RS to support a statement which TOI never stated. And about autoreviewer rights I had requested it as most of my creations would remain unreviewed for months and NPP as I wanted to help newbies new creations by citing in-depth coverages and marking it as reviewed per Notability policies, which I honestly did. And I have answered most of the queries there and frankly speaking I feel I am addicted to this place so I am happing contributing with or without rights :) Anoptimistix (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Kudpung, this is renewed forum shopping after this ANI close. That itself was a follow on from other such individual admin-shopping actions, right now I know that this is at least on your talk page and mine, don't know if it's elsewhere, I can't be bothered to waste my time to check but figured I'd alert you to the context! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Birthdate/year for page entry Joya Powell

Good morning, I have found and added the birth year for entry Joya Powell. Thank you.

Aquariusveritas (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

I really wish some of our most ambiguous PAGs could be clarified, such as canvassing. Here's my question - if a reviewer tagged an article for questionable notability, and another reviewer takes it to AfD, can the latter inform the former of the action or would that be considered canvassing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Answering with another generality. You usually are not looked at as canvassing if you invite all the original contributors to a discussion to contribute to a subsequent discussion. In a neutral fashion of course. Maybe that helps? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bri but that doesn't quite answer the question. The article was in the NPR queue (created 9-12-2017). It was initially tagged questionable notability, etc. and that is the editor I wanted to contact because I followed that tag with an AfD as the file was still in the NPP queue. The article creator has a COI so it won't help to notify them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, It is not canvassing to inform the previous reviewer, especially if they should have tagged it for deletion in the first place. A reviewer should be competent enough to know if an article should be listed for one of our methods of deletion, or can be kept but requires stronger arguments for notability. It they don't know these things, they need to be told. If it was tagged by a non accredited reviewer, their logs should be examined and if appropriate they should be asked to refrain from patrolling new pages. All they are doing, as in this instance, is making more work by forcing the real reviewers to double check everything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Geopolicity Inc. page deletion

TomMcAllen (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Hello, Since you have deleted the page I wanted to create. I'd like to contest the deletion by adding the following.

Geopolicity Inc. is an international consulting group that works in fragile and developing countries. I think its work, as a firm is quite interesting for the international and internet community because of all its development work that can also be perceived as having a humanitarian side. I see no reason why it cannot be presented to Wikipedia, its users and the world wide web individuals [that access it].

Also, various other companies are on Wikipedia, like the Eurasia Group, Control Risks, Rubini Global Economics, Le Beck International, and the Economist Intelligence Unit — therefore this is completely un-transparent and unfair towards other firms and companies.

Hi TomMcAllen, this article failed to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and was speedy deleted. (see WP:GNG and WP:ORG). An article about a company, corporation or organization must credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The importance must be supported by independent, high quality sources (see WP:RS). Wikipedia is not a company listing site (See: WP:NOTDIR). Please also declare your work for this company. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

TomMcAllen (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC) I find it ridiculous. The page had sources, it had objective content about a company that does work in fragile countries, focusing on economic development and social inclusion.

The speedy deletion made no sense, since other similar companies, like Geopolicity exist and have pages on Wikipedia. Therefore your argument cannot be valid. Please explain. Thank you.

Hi TomMcAllen, the page had no valid sources, and where we cite our policies, our 'arguments' are always valid. Geopolicity Inc. was a blatant advert, it can not be restored unless it is rewritten to comply with our rules of non-promotion. Any other articles about companies either comply with our rules, or more rarely, they might not yet have been sorted for deletion. Please also respond to the message on your talk page otherwise your editing privileges may be restricted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

imposter or coincidence?

Just so you know, Kudpung4 is a four month-old account making their first edit today. I'm not sure how much I should AGF versus assume this was deliberate. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your vigilance Chris. This is one of the accounts of mine used strictly for testing purposes. I mistakenly used it yesterday to make a posting about the Wizard. I had been testing some ACTRIAL features from the perspective of a new account. It's listed somewhere on my main user page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Just wanted to be sure someone wasn't trying to screw with you. The user page for that account doesn't indicate that it's a sock of yours (deliberately in this case). Chris Troutman (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Re your comment

Hi. Sorry for contacting you here. The ArbCom case is closed. Comments that try to undo my contribution in the project should not be welcome though. The comment in question should probably be removed from the revsion history. The comment is not just about a disagreement on approach which could be and is understandable. It's a comment that tries to underestimate my contribution to the project the last five (5) years. As you see I don't question the ArbCom decision and I am very happy that the ArbCom did not inherit those characterisations against me. Best, Magioladitis (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis, nobody's interested in ploughing through old Arbcom cases, but you should have thought of the consequences when you did everything to get yourself desysoped. You've done some exceptional work for Wikipedia and travelled the world to achieve it, but you've blotted your copybook and unfortunately it reflects on all us admins. All people are interested in are the recent headlines that yet another admin has gone rogue, but it will all blow over soon and be forgotten. That said, you still have enormous potential to do a lot of good work - put the bad stuff behind you and move forward. I have a good friend who was desysoped but he is still very much liked by the community and still goes to every Wikimania. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. The desyssoping is not an issue. Since, he decision was depended heavily on a single issue I am will re-run for adminship very soon. I am not visiting Poland for CEE meeting. Being sysop is not related to any outreach activities. What I am concerned here is negative comments for my work as editor and this is exactly because I spend more than 10 hours daily on Wikipedia projects -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I often spend 10 hours a day on it too, and it costs me a lot of money to travel to meetings. There is a lot of of shit written about me too - fortunately it's all lies (you can see it in my archives). Drop the sticks, get on with your life, and I'll see you again at the next Wikimania (I didn't make it to Montreal this year). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not make it to Montreal neither :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I indirectly mentioned you at ANI in the thread ‎Blanking sockmaster's userpage allowed? Obviously I think it is allowed and you did nothing wrong; however, I was reverted in an incident. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please restore U. T. Downs

U. T. Downs appears to have been created before he was banned, so is not eligible for a speedy deletion. Please take it to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

On appearance, yes. Hathorn is however a block evading account of all or any of the 58 accounts that were blocked 2011/2012 here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Qukp2

Hi,

I have no confidence that this editor will ever edit constructivly, and it clearly looks like this should be a case of a WP:NOTHERE block, so I'm not sure why you only temporarly blocked them. I ask this because I'm pretty sure most administration would have blocked this account indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Thanks. 172.58.46.238 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

U. T. Downs

I saw you speedy deleted this article and I am the editor who started the AFD. The article was created by banned editor Billy Hathorn but this article was around a while, been at AFD once before(I didn't know that till today) and I even edited once about a year. BH on at least three occasions has had a second biography in an article about someone. I removed the second biography which was a substantial edit.

The speedy delete I think was wrong but I feel the article should be deleted. I'm just here to let you know....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WilliamJE pleas look two messages above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw it and your speedy deletion is dead wrong. Do I need to take this to ANI?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Discuss it properly and politely, and then we can decide if I restore it or if you take it take it to Delrev if you must. Otherwise you will be at ANI for agressive behaviour, arrogance, admin baiting, and disruption of the collaborative spirit. You have a history of this kind of thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Kudpung, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh666 19:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Some ache...

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nickelodeon22222.Quite inclined to have a mop!Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Deleted again, and salted. The user's next edit will probably be the one that gets him blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for reviewing my creation

Thanks once again, this time for reviewing my creation Bandh Dih, Grateful. Anoptimistix (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A flagrant and unashamed case of refactoring another editor's talk page post

I decided that this was one of the rare occasions when changing another editor's talk page post was justified. In the almost inconceivable event that you disagree, let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

James, why on Earth should I object at anything you do? You were my unsuspecting mentor long ago in my pre-admin days. I think this user is NOTHERE - thanks for noticing. His very first edit was his first attempt to transclude an RfA. His next one was to place a ridiculous CSD tag. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Much as I would like to think that I am infallible, I'm afraid there are sometimes very good reasons for objecting to things that I do.

Was I really your "unsuspecting mentor"? I don't remember that. The one thing I do remember about contact with you back in those far off days was telling you that my mother came from Malvern.

As for the editor in question, it looks very much as though what you say may be true, and my first instinct was to treat it as a case of vandalism. My first draft of the message I posted to the editor's talk page referred to the the CSD tag as "absurd", where you say "ridiculous": much the same thing, but on reflection I decided to assume good faith, and treat it as a case of incompetence rather than vandalism. Either way, though, if he or she continues to edit I won't be placing bets on the account remaining unblocked for much longer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

James: And his third or fourth edit was to make a second attempt to transclude an RfA. I've salted it. Yes, you really were my "unsuspecting mentor". I don't remember you saying your mother came from Malvern though. I flew there last year because my father (96) passed away. My mother (92) is still there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I didn't place that bet. I thought from the start the question was probably "when" rather than "if", though I still think there's no harm in assuming a bit more good faith than seems likely, until proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Occasionally such assumption of GF turns out to be justified, and more is gained on those occasions than is lost in the much larger number of cases where the only difference is that the block is delayed for a short time. Slightly annoyed that you got in at the end before me, though. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

For your work not only as an admin but as a NPR (and I don't mean national public radio). Cheers!

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

NPR's and imports

Hello Kudpung , occasionally we get import requests for pages that aren't the highest quality. We usually shunt these to sandboxes or drafts to get worked on, but occasionally they get imported to article space. A recent example is CODE_University_of_Applied_Sciences. Imports are relatively rare, but they will generally get marked autopatrolled as a side effect of the process. Is "marking unreviewed" sufficient to get this in to the NPR queue? (After marking unreviewed I see it in Special:NewPagesFeed and it has a meta noindex,nofollow tag now). Thanks for any insight! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ping to patroller @Theroadislong: who picked up on this specific page as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux, as far as I know, "marking unreviewed" would be sufficient to get such articles in to the NPR queue. At least that is what is supposed to happen. If the curation toolbar is not visible, it can be called by clicking on the 'Curate this article' link in the left sidebar. For an exact check on the technicalities, you might wish to confer with Kaldari. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, like I said these are rare! It looks like after I put that one in unreviewed another patroller got it, tagged, and marked done already so it seems like it is working. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, marking as "unreviewed" should be sufficient to add it into the queue at Special:NewPagesFeed. Kaldari (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Images Needing Deleted

Hi Kudpung, Can you delete these images please?

• File:German intecept operations Norway, Denmark, Belgium 1939-jan 1940.png
• File:German intecept operations Norway, Denmark, Belgium April 1940.png
• File:German intecept operations in France 1940.png
• File:German intecept operations in Britain 1940 - Jan 1941.png
• File:German Balkan Intercept Operation February 1941.png
• File:Sheet 46 - Ardnamurchan & Loch Shiel.png
• File:Luftwaffe Signal Intelligence Serviice command structure organization.png

First five are maps, that have been converted in maps, in the map room. 6 doesn't show what it is supposed too. 7. Has a bundle of mistakes which are fixed, using help from ref desk. Thanks. 21:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP subject investigation

Hi

After my 'major screw-up' on some of my BLP reviews at AfC, I have made a list of all the reviews I did to make it easier for your investigation, as you put it. This: User:Aguyintobooks/NPP Log page shows all the AfC drafts I accepted (but not those I declined), and all the NPP patrols (including those I nominated for deletions).

 --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  09:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The vandal responds!

Hey Kudpung. The IP address you blocked earlier today, for "incorrect use of [db-g12]", was me, editing while logged out (on the rare occasions I edit from my phone, I don't log in). I find such editing very difficult—copying snippets of text from articles, pasting it in in quotes into Google; navigate back; write the nomination with its non-standard markup hard to find on secondary menus of the phone "keyboard"; copy the CSD notice template, paste to the user's talk page, etc.—a two minute job from a desktop computer is a twenty minute struggle).

Anyway, both pages that I marked as infringing, were indeed copyvios. The entire career section from Sadeka Halim‎ (i.e., the main body of the article) was word-for-word ripped from here—the pdf I had tagged as a copyvio of. Likewise with Deirdre Beddoe, though my note in the tagging acknowledged that I was not capable of doing a thorough check from my phone for other sources of copying (which there were). In fact, the user acknowledged their copying on the talk page by saying they had rewritten the pasted content, after my tagging, though there was still infringement remaining, after the supposed removal by the user, that I've now taken care of. (There's no need to undo the block; that's just some IP address my phone cadged onto earlier today, for the location I was traversing in Manhattan).

I know you might feel a bit chagrined. I'm not here for that! Just take this as a gut check. A truly new user who was blocked in like circumstances, might feel bitten, and I know you care about that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I ran the copyvio check and it came up with nothing. A truly new user, IMO, shouldn't eve be thinking of patroling new pages, and obviously not from a mobile phone. In my experience, those who do have indeed been vandals. It proves one thing though, despite what some people think: I'm not a deletionist ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the Earwig detection tool, or any of the others, one of the reasons I placed so much emphasis at NPP on not trusting them—especially for negative results—is that they fail to understand close paraphrasing, cannot see the text of pdfs or any non-renderable text (and sometimes fail to see word-for-word copying for reasons that are just inexplicable).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

At the moment I'm having to cope with a reviewer who patrolls at the rate of three or four pages a minute. Approximately 20 - 25% of their patrolls are unsatisfactory and it's taken me an hour already to check just through 20 of their 74 patrols over the last 24 hours. Nobody else does this double checking, and I'll probably end up removing their Reviewer flag. Thanks for the tip about the detection bots. Coren, which used to systematically check every new page automatically, did in fact somehow read PDFs. Now that the daily number of new pages has dropped significantly since ACTRIAL was rolled out, reviewers should be able to work more thoroughly. If the bots don't work, I'm curious to know how you found the PDF - what's your secret? Pasting chunks of text in Google? That's what I often do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing greatly innovative. Always copy as short a passage as you can that seems unique; take from the middle of sentences and don't cross periods; do so for a few different sentences from a few different paragraphs; avoid pronouns and other things that are most likely to be changed. Here's the problem with PDFs as best I can make out. While they do have renderable text, they are often OCRed (optical character recognition), and for whatever reasons breaks between sentences often aren't recognized in the same way as a quoted passage you search. So, if you copy across a period, or use too large swath of text in quote, it won't be found. Just my experience.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about the periods. I wasn't aware of that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

On the issue of the above three-or-four-pages-a-minute reviewer, a stock template would not be useful, but for similar work, maybe you'd find {{sdd4}} useful. I spent a lot of time on it and its documentation to take make make it really easy to inform NPPs of reasons for declines. I've just recently posted about it at WT:CSD#SD decline template created to make informing of declines easy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I see you've gone to a lot of trouble with that. I'll import it into Typinator - the problem isn't with the template per se, it's that it's never been patched into the Curation toolbar (like a lot of other essential things) - and the people at Phab are now telling me I should write the code! What a cheek. Problem with the WMF is that they automatically assume everyone is a computer freak, so they refuse to rise to their paid obligations. Some of us are linguists, musicians, or art historians. WikiMedia code is an enigma to most people - even many IT experts who understand php. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Johannes Paulmann

Hello Kudpung,

thanks for your message on my talk page. You're right, the article about Johannes Paulmann is a translation. I added a note on the article's talk page Talk:Johannes Paulmann, just as you suggested. I also used the translation template in the article itself. I hope I did it in a proper way this time and that this is now adequate to indicate the translation? Next time I'll try to be more accurate right from the beginning and I'd like to say sorry for being a little careless when doing the article. Best regards Geripptes Glas (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geripptes Glas. I just happened to see your post, as I was in a conversation with Kudpung above. Thanks for attempting to fix the copyright attribution issue! The talk page template you added is good, but is only belt and suspenders to direct copyright attribution placed in the edit history of the article itself. Since the missed step was attribution in the edit summary accompanying the translation (this must also be done when copying from another Wikipedia article in the same language), the fix is through a "dummy edit", noting in it the missing attribution from a prior edit and providing the hyperlink to the source of copying.

Through that mechanism, the missing attribution is added where it belonged in the first place, directly in the page history of the article. I have taken care of this in this edit. You can read more about this at WP:RIA. I included in the explanation page for dummy edits I linked a variety of suggested repair edit summaries for this purpose. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)