Howdy, there is an outstanding unblock request regarding a user that you recently blocked. A CU has been run and there was no technical evidence found to connect the two accounts. I plan on unblocking the account, but I wanted to check with you first before doing so. Please let me know if there are any reasons I should not unblock the account. Thanks, Nakon01:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you want to link asteism (it's a redirect)? Or to wiktionary.[1] (I forget how to make the neat wiktionary links.) Good word, but it was new to me. I plan on using it all the time now. Bishonen | talk08:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen. From the page at Insult, it appears to be already linked to Wiktionary, but in a rather cack-handed way because asteism as I always understood it (and from scholarship of Shakespeare's famous use of literary devices which 500 years later is still today second to none), is more of a back-handed compliment rather than a direct or strong insult. In the RfA it's analogy is a very interesting double entendre because it digs both at the nominator's unfortunately ambiguous choice of phrase and the candidate. Top marks to the editor who noticed it and used it very eloquently in their oppose rationale - I missed it (duh!). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why no one has tried to close this AFD, it appears something odd happened to it in the relist process, it isn't displayed in any deletion log: Special:WhatLinksHere/Articles for deletion/Planio. It looks like JAaron relisted it here and then right after you tried to relist it here, but your relist commented it out...so unless I'm missing something it's in limbo. Can you take a look? Thanks, Vrac (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vrac, relisting seems to have hit an edit conflict hence the double entry. There have however been ten new comments since it was relisted so I don't really think it is in limbo. It's just not going to be easy for the closer to read the consensus out of the discussion - if indeed there is one in that debate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious...
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think I recall you making several comments in the past implying that you very much desired Liz to be an admin, and once even subtly suggested that you would like to nominate her. I was shocked when I saw you in the oppose section. Just curious about it... --Biblioworm17:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, quite possible, Biblioworm, but I generally don't make such declarations very noisily or at least not as positively as you may have thought at the time, and I'm no hypocrite. I'm very cautious when I have not yet done any in-depth research - sort of on the lines of 'unless you have some skellies in your closet I don't know about, perhaps you might wish to consider running for adminship if you can check all the boxes here' . If I made such an observation about Liz it must have been a quite a while back because I was noticing the issues that give me pause at least since the time she became an Arbcom clerk or even earlier, and I mentioned it in a pub at the time to a close Wikipedia friend who by coincidence had the same impression. It became clear, at least to me, that here was someone who, like Sarah Stierch (217/0/2) whose demise cost her her WMF job but not her bit, was firmly committed to policing the 'pedia. Stierch fell to the adage 'The higher they rise, the further they fall'. Oliver Keys is anoher example of a disasterously public faux-pas which cost him his bit but not his WMF job. Liz always struck me nevertheless as someone who did have a genuine streak behind her naïve and oft unnecessary comments everywhere, and to oppose her RfA (and finding a way of doing it as nicely as possible) was intended to help her save her from herself. A lively RfA that fails must surely be better than the total embarassment Stierch must have felt when she fell from her perch and in doing so became the target of the international quality print media (kudos though for still editing, albeit after a quick name change). I supported both those RfAs and I guess I learned my lesson, particularly in this current climate of anti-admin vgilantés and I and Worm That Turned are trying to find out what the community thinks of at least one suggestion for a more efficient method for desyoping without the pitchforks and tarring and feathering. And that's also why I feel the peanut gallery, trolls, and other miscreants have no business poking their noses in at RfA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have agreed over the years with much of what you have had to say about RfA (and about other things), but if your opposition to Liz's RfA was intended as a favor to her, I don't in the least perceive it that way, and I doubt very much that she does either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, I was not in the position of publicly handing out favours, otherwise I would have said so in my rationale. The official interpretation of my vote is that I find Liz's persitent presence on noticeboards and anywhere else she can squeeze a comment in as being possibly demonstrative of seeking attention, or perhaps her naïvely believing that her contributons are of more importance than I and several other opposers have been suggesting. I tried to wrap my vote in a bed of feathers without sounding patronizing. I even voted what I mistakenly thought was late enough so as not to unduly influence the party. In fact I very nearly recused myself entirely from the RfA, and even told someone off-Wiki that I probably would if ever she ran, but that would have gone against my principle of expressing my opinion at every single RfA that matters. Perhaps I should have kept my trap shut after all, but on the other hand, this RfA has turned out to be such a close run thing that I think my vote matters even if you and I are not on the same side in this one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, you sent me an email in mid-June where you said: I am convinced however that Wikipedia needs admins of your calibre as soon as they are ready but not before. You even said that if you thought I was ready, you would nominate me. Your message left me with the impression you would support me in the future but that you didn't think I was ready for an RfA.
But your comments here make it appear that you would never support me, in fact, you think I have some fatal flaws that make me unsuited to be an admin. I find these mixed messages from you, and other editors, confusing to say the least. LizRead!Talk!21:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, it is possibly somewhat disingenuous to publish here contents of a confidential email, especially when the exerpt is taken out of context. Under advice from other respected admins you understandably went ahead with an RfA. My email to you of Wednesday, June 17, 2015 3:25 AM clearly conveyed a very different set of semantics and I would have thought that my advice was clear. This further reinforces my opinion that you often fail to grasp what people are saying to you or what they are discussing in various places or noticeboards. I have never inferred either in any shape or form that I would never support you for RfA. The key words are precisely the ones you picked to cite from my email which was a polite suggestion that as of June I did not feel you were ready for adminship - yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to return here with more of what on an RfA page might be called badgering, but I was just rereading the bureaucrat chat talkpage, and I was struck by your comment that "the 'crats are going to have to tread very carefully on this one." Um, or else what? I'm not sure you did yourself justice in how that comment came out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're a lawyer Brad, (I am not) so I guess it's normal for you to look for usable hooks in other peple's semanticts. There was absolutely no 'or else' inferred in my comment The talk page you refer to is an informal venue and has no effect on the votes that were cast. It is impossible to influence a bureaucrat, but I am sure that much of the community that has an interest in RfA and admishiop concerns will be split down the middle over their decision and that this will be a subject for discussion for a while to come especially where the future of the bureaucrat usergroup is also currently under discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JAGUAR comment, @Liz: re: your comments here make it appear that you would never support me – Whatever Kudpung's concerns, they're probably not generalizable. For many of the oppose !voters (myself included) it was mostly an expectation that you'd come back in 6 months after more content work and less of a focus on noticeboards, and then be a shoo-in. Even the diff of the negative comment about the concerns of content-focused editors would have been old news by that point. [shrug]. I'm happy for you that you got promoted, and trust that the concerns raised will affect your approach positively. I'm dead certain that the main issue is approaching content disputes as if all sides have equal footing, when they very frequently do not. There's a genuine and major difference between good faith editors, including exasperated ones, working to make a better encyclopedia, and WP:NOTHERE PoV-pushers trying to warp it, or just being pains in the collective backside for their own entertainment, for that matter. There are multiple classes of bad-acting "editors" who cannot be treated, after some WP:DUCK analysis, as if they're equally valued members of the editing community. ANI as a venue collectively recognizes this pretty clearly, so we'll trust that you will as well. Good luck, and I commend you on weathering what was probably the closest-call RfA in in years. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter. I fully understand yiiur concern both for the article and the behavior since the editor came off his block. However, the new article is just a tad too different to be able to delete it as a recreation. I suggest you tag it for CSD under any criterion that applies and if there isn't one that does, then send it to AfD, but do treat it on its own merits. The creator admits to not being pefect in English and doesn't even fully comprehend why he has been blocked a couple of times in the first place. Perhaps the kindest advice to him is that he edit in his home Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you are one of the joint proposers of WP:BARC and very invested in reform, I would appreciate it if you take a look at a recent draft of an alternative proposal for de-sysopping that I've written at User:BU Rob13/RfC for Administrator Re-election. Your thoughts, whatever they might be, are very welcome on the talk page. I'm trying to determine if this is a feasible RfC to run. ~ RobTalk20:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey
BARC? Kudpung, I'm one of those insignificant nobody editors who strongly believes that there needs to be a community-based process for addressing problems of administrator misconduct and other inappropriate behavior. I supported your recent BARC proposal as a necessary first step in the right direction. Predictably, several categories of "oppose" !voters are attempting to dismantle the proposal brick by brick, some because they oppose any new process that can bring administrators to account, and others because they have various concerns about "community-based," the role of the bureaucrats, and systemic protections built into an as-yet incompletely described process. In real life, I'm a commercial real estate and corporate lawyer, with an extensive background in designing systems and processes for companies, partnerships and non-profit associations, and then drafting the governing documents for those organizations. If you're willing, I have some observations and suggestions regarding changes to your proposal, which I would like share with you off-wiki via email. Please let me know. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dirtlawyer1. You have listed exactly the main reasons (or rationales) used by the opposers to dismantle the RfC (and dismantle is the operative word as opposed to rational, objective opposition). Not to mention that some are not opposing the proposal but are opposing it because its spearheaded by me (as a not quite so insignificant nobody editor due to my loud mouth, and possibly by WTT by being a 'crat and a former arb himself). For one thing the claims of canvassing are totally untrue and diingenuous and I'm surprised (well not quite so surprised really) to see that mission headed by a former long-term Arbcom member whose comments in in other places also give me pause. My professional field, with an early first degree in Business Studies (which nowadays is generally called an MBA) was in linguistics and communication and that is why I pay a lot of attention to how I word and present my RfCs. Nevertheless, even our RfC system is intrinsically flawed. For one thig, the longer a debate gets, the less people bother to read all of it before they vote. Also, like street demonstrations for citizens' rights - which we do a lot of in European countries - some are just professional nay-sayers who are there for the ride. Unfortunately, a closer cannot really justify ignoring such votes even if s/he wanted to. I wholeheartedly welcome you suggestions by email, because already I am drafting a new proposal in case this one fails. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Kudpung. Thanks for the ping, but I had already seen your response above earlier. Yours is one of the user talk pages I have watch-listed for "educational purposes." I'll try to send my observations and suggestions for BARC Round II later this evening. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer1, I also need to pick your brain on something rather odd concerning these now two debates where your skill and perception as a lawyer would be extremely helpful. It's gone midnight here, I'll catch up with your mail in the morning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apology
I apologise for the the way I addressed you, for not realising that it was my revert you took issue with, and for accusing you of "drive-by mud-slinging", which was doubtless a very provocative thing to say. It is - of course - your right not to accept my apology if you'd prefer not to, but I thought I had to make it as a matter of principle. Alakzi (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never demand apologies, Alakzi, but when they come I realise it takes a lot of courage to make them. Welcome to my side of the fence and let's work together to make Wikipedia better than it already is :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to a comment I felt forced to make last week and updated just now on the Talk:Malvern Hills District page. Queenhill is in a long list of places for which I am writing brief summaries for the genealogy website <redacted> --Oldontarian (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KH-1, semi protection won't work because the users are confirmed accounts. I have full protected it for only 24 hours after which you can make a new request at WP:RFPP and or request the editors be blocked at WP:ANI if appropriate. If several editors are making the same kind of inappropriate edits, ask for a WP:SPI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, two questions. First, do you have any news about how WikiHistory is progressing? I left a note for Elee but got no response; he hasn't edited since mid-July. Second, I recall that there was something we could download and look up article histories ourselves? Do you have any idea how I can find that? Sarah(talk)18:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to explain the details but if you look at his talk page.
User talk:Nrwairport Instead of helping he is increasing problems. Wrongly tagging articles for deletion, biting newcomers including kids. Only Yesterday he claimed to have made 500,000 edits on Wikipedia on his user page which he corrected today. He claims to be for more than 6 years. Check the end of this page.
You deleted our page.
This is a band Page, which was undergoing changes and more information. Can you please create this back again. And move it so we can publish it when it is done?
We had links to our band Page. So I do not see the issue and why you had to delete.
Hi. I did not delete 'your' page, it was deleted by another admin. Unfortunately your band does not meet our notability criteria per WP:BAND. Also please see WP:COI. When your band is truly notable, someone not connected with you might write an article about it. PLease sign your posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying 'we'. Please note that a) you are not allowed to edit as a group of peoplw, and b) you have a clear WP:Conflict of Interest. Please see the messages on yur talk page. Other information you need can be found at WP:BAND. Your band was deleted per WP:A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). If your band does not meet these criteria, it will unfortunately not qualify for an article in Wikipedia and would be deleted again. It may be possible to have the article recreated as a Draft, but you would need to discuss that with WilyD, the deleting administrator, but neither you nor anyone connected wth the band should be editing it. And once again, please sign your posts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My edits
About my page curation, at the time of my use of the page curation tool, there were no criteria posted for potential reviewers. About those examples you posted, example 1 was not a patrol edit, I just (at the time) thought the exclamation points were a typo, but I looked into it more and learned that it was shorthand for "not-vote", I don't see the problem with #2, about the third one, I cleaned up my accidental tagging for deletion quickly, and someone else came and renominated it for deletion. Same for 5. I would have reverted three but I didn't know I had changed it at the time, but I meant to fix it. Granted, 6 was a bad edit on my part. I don't see the problem with 7 though. On 8, I thought the section "Palmares" was unclear. And I made a mistake tag-bombing 9. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jjjjjjdddddd, that was just a short list. I did not want to harrass or embarrass you by mentioning more. There are indeed no minimum critera for being able to patrol new pages but that is an error of the system (still to be resolved) and not one of the individual or our collective common sense; WP:AfC, a far less important process than NPP, for example, expects reviewers to have at least 500 mainspace edits, a minmum tenure, and to have demonstrated good discretion in interpreting the guidelines for article creation. Likewise, very simple tasks of counter vandalism requiring the use of Rollback and Reviewer tools also need the approval of an administrator and have similar minimum criteria. If you were to read WP:NPP, Wikipedia:Page Curation, and WP:DELETION you would appreciate the complexity of page patrolling and you would avoid making these errors. Add to that, you never make use of the message feature in the Curation Tool. If you feel that your interest lies more in policing our encyclopedia rather than building it, then I do encourage you to hone your skills in less sensitive areas first. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I have read, and am familiar with those pages, and used the message feature for page curation. Also, what's to determine importance of AFC over NPP? And thanks for not bombarding me with examples. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfC is not our firewall against unwanted content. It is primarily intended to be of help to users who are restricted from creating in article space or who would like a review before moving their creations to article space; furthermore, in spite of requirements, the actual standard of reviewing is lamentably low there too. NPP on the other hand is extremely important. It is our only firewall against inappropriate new pages and is the input area for editors to be made aware thst while perhaps otherwise acceptable, their articles need some urgent attention. If you are unable to understand this then I assume that you most certainly are not ready to be patrolling new pages. NPP has to be done properly by experieced editors or not at all. The only reason a restricted use of NPP does not exist is that it is still under discussion how to implement it as it requires intervention by the software engineers at the WMF. I will not dwell on this discussion any longer; you are a very new user, other users have made you aware of the shortcomings of your patrolling and I have offered my advice. There are plenty of other areas where your help is urgently needed without you needing to get out of your depth with NPP. You could work through the category of unreferenced articles or WP:CVUA (for which you just have enough edits to enroll for training) and take up where you left of with Chris troutman, and WP:GOCE for example. It is only bu doing such things that you will really learn the essentials for correctly and objectively patrolling new pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if it weren't for AFC, NPP would not have nearly as many articles TO patrol. Does the creation of more information, which is reasonably certain to be good, not outweigh the deletion of (less common) bad information, which would have been done anyways by other editors. I am going to finish at the CVUA, by the way. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfC is a volunteer project run by people who find it fun to do, but it's non essential. It's existence isn't even dictated by Wikipedia and in fact it would be better off being closed down and merged to NPP. It's a bonus help for users who don't want to register an account or who are otherwise banned from editing in mainspace, or who dont't have the confidence to edit in mainspace, The few creations that go through the article wizard also land there. They may get 20 or so new articles a day and the majority of those get declined.. NPP has to cope with around 1,500 new articles every day 90% of which have problems of some kind or another (even the autopatrolled creations need a quick check) and about 60% are destined for deletion. Without NPP Wikipedia just would not exists at all because it would be a monumental library of absolute crap. We now have close on 5 MILLION articles on the English Wikipedia and every one of them has had to go through NPP - that's a lot of work, and if only 10% of them slipped through the net (and that's about how many do due to poor reviewing) that's half a million pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An AfC and NPP merge is a good idea, granted, but RCP would probably clean up the vandal pages if NPP failed. Also, 60% of new articles aren't delete-worthy. I know five million articles haven't gone through NPP because NPP isn't as old as Wikipedia. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New Pages is part of the core Wiki software. It's been in the Wikipedia since it was created. The NPP project page was created in March 2004 as an incentive to patrollers and was completely rewritten by me and Scottywong around 2010. The new New Pages Feed and its Curation Tool, launched in late 2012 to replace the old Special:New pages feature was an initiative I and several other admins started following ACTRIAL (2010), in direct colaboration with Eric Möller, the recently retired vice CEO of The Wikimedia Foundation, Brandon Harris, the recently retired Director of Engineering, and Howie Fung (also retired). RCP has nothing to do with NPP but it's probably somewhere you can start to gain experience, especially if you can be bothered to continue the CVUA training you started with Chris troutman. If you know more about the inner workings of Wikipedia than I do please let me know, otherwise please give it a rest now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kijana oakley
Please could you send me the text that was written on the deleted page as I would like to keep it, I planned on sourcing and improving the page soon and didn't mean to officially publish it, it was only a silly draft and I will soon add the real information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frigginload (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. There is no way such drivel could ever be turned into a Wikipedia article. I suggest you amuse yourself by simply typing such rubbish on your computer at home and if you must have an audience for it, try WordPress or FaceBook. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citation
Hello Kudpung,
Could you please let me know how should I cite an article that is written by its own creator? That is David Jassan Rosas. There isn´t any other reference or bibliography.
In which case, Beatrizsilvafer, you unfortunately have a clear WP:Conflict of Interest and should not be writing this article at all. That said, all articles must be referenced to reliable , independent, 3rd party sources, and in particular, biographies of living people must satisfy the requirements at WP:BLPand the notabillity criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I strongly recommend you read those pages in their entirety, but in the meantime the article will probably already have been deleted. You may wish to explain to David that if he is truly notable, someone else will write a Wikipedia article about him some day.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Djenterium
Hi. I still need it rektorer. So I can add reference to publishments and articles. You dont have to publicly post it. I just need my article restored as a draft.
The guidelines says that you are able to do that.
Hello Kudpung
Thank you for reviewing Kendall wall band. I am unsure what formatting you wish to be added or changed other than bolding the bands name???
I did run the article through spelling and grammar set up before creating.
Please advise. thanks Imasku (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article to the correct name (proper names in English have capital letters) and copy edited the first section for grammar which had many errors (see page history and diffs for actual changes). I suggest you reread the rest to check again manually. Otherwise it looks good. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why my page is getting deleted this is the 3rd time i have put in my efforts in this and feeling very bad about this there is no foul language that i have used any where in my post. or else being the sr wikipedian please help me with the process how it should be done and my page will not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagansetia (talk • contribs) 14:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this is not at all advertisement , this is the background of our company... on my page no where it says that we are promoting this and we are just registering our self on wiki as this is the ocean of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagansetia (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for you to 'register' your company. If your company is very special and has done something so spectacular it has been mentioned in leading newspapers, then it might be notable enough for Wikipedia. But that typo is not the case with your company. Besides which, you have a Conflict of Interest and should not be writing about yourselves. Sorry. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thank you for your comments regarding my newly created page on "Marton Kovacs". I am student in Poland and the book by Marton Kovacs has become a must-read at our university. Marton Kovacs as well as his company Marilyn Political have apparently major influence on politics in Europe. However, only very little is known about him and the company. His book was the number one bestseller in Germany and France in the category "political leadership", but online you find only very few information about it. In order to put more transparency on Mr Kovacs and his company, I used three sources, an American newspaper called "Politico", the Austrian webportal "Stadtbekannt", and the Hungarian newsportal "Index". All three sources are well-known and respected media in Europe. I do not know what better sources I could add. Can you explain, why you suggested to mention more sources? Also, you added some formatting changes by making the name "Marton Kovacs" bold. However, you forgot to make the first "M" bold as well. I don't know how to change it, so I mention it here. Thank you for your help. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParisDakar123 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ParisDakar123. The article actually has more problems but I assume you will be addressing these. It lacks all standard biographical information including DoB and nationality, for example. It has no categories which are essential for an encyclopeia's indexing system. Please see WP:Your first article for more information. Please remember to sign your talk page messages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent issues with my ability to patrol pages
Whenever I perform actions with Twinkle, the affected page is marked as patrolled. This is probably what led to your placing of a message on my talk page about inexperience. Many of the pages I caused to be marked as patrolled were never intended to be marked. When I notice and remember to do so, I manually unmark these. How can this be prevented in the future? Thanks in advance, MopSeekerFoxThree!22:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MopSeeker, the key word is 'new', as in New Page Patrol. We went to a lot of trouble and effort to get the Foundation to develop and deploy this amazing suite of Page Curation tools a couple of years ago. Its primary objective was to replace Twinke as the 'new' page tagging system. Some redundant features still remain as part of Twinkle but should only be used for tagging pages that are not new, i.e. pages that are not appearing on the list at New Pages Feed. The new system is the default system. For more information please see Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help and WP:NPP, but my comments regarding your abiliy to patrol new pages are still relevant. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have seen that you have changed the formatting of the book title "How to run the European Parliament". However, you have cut of the last "t" of the title. Please fix. I still do not know what you mean with adding more sources for the citations. Please let me know. Thanks for all your help. Kind regards.
Dear Sir, i have seen your message on talk. I assure you that my article is not a promotional post but an informative and unique. I am trying to improvise the sentences that I have used in my article. I have read all policies and guidelines mentioned to write an article for Wikipedia. I would be following it carefully.
Hi. Your article is informative but Wikipedia is not a business directory. Any such general information entries serve to make your company or organisation more known through Wikipedia and are therefore considered promotional. Pleease sign your messages.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
The page about Ryszard Petru is a translation of an original Polish page with full description, and sources. So everything is available and true, but today the wikipedia became complicated and I found actually difficult to create a proper article with citations, but simply for technical reason.
I am going to provide all the citations within a few days.
The person is quite famous today in Poland and I believe it is important there is sth about him also on the English wiki.
Regards
Maciej Kania — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKania1976 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read all the recommended lectures and it doesn´t seem like a conflict of interest, since the only purpose of publishing its bio is because he is a notable person in the telecom industry and we wanted to share it with the public. In the explanation about biographies of living persons it states that "Sometimes, the subject of the article itself could be involved in its publication, either directly or through representatives" In this case I am the representative and everything posted is approved and authorized by David. Could you please let me know why the article is not worth it? What could we do to try an keep it? Thank you very much for your time and help!BeatrizsilvaferBeatrizsilvafer (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Beatrizsilvafer[reply]
Unfortunately there is a very clear Conflict of Interest and the misunderstanding is that we at Wikipedia aprove what comes into he encyclopedia and not the subjects of their biographies. Provided what we publish is supported by reliable sources and is not libellous, and if the subject meets our criteria for notabiity, we will publish it. On the other hand, however important people or their agents believe themselves to be, if they don't meet our criteria, there will be no article. Please see WP:COI, and WP:NOTABILITY. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RE: File CSD G3 NOM
I don't know if that image was intended for use on enwiki or not or if it had any legitimate use; I had thought for a moment my nomination was wrong. Was I incorrect in that assumption or did you just happen to see the nom and get it? It was hosted on commons and apparently had a use at least there but I'm not sure if the image actually belongs on this wiki anywhere and I wanted to follow up and make sure the deletion nomination was in fact a correct action. ♥Melody♥03:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: crosslinking cyber; Clarification: I mentioned this on his talk page as well; seems that MediaWiki thought he was the uploader somehow due to his bot templating the file? Not sure exactly what all went on there; but it just seems to have confused the system and he ended up with the CSD notice on his talkpage. ♥Melody♥03:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged as vandalism. It had a pornographic description. Although we need pictures of genitalia to illustrate scientific articles, that was hardly suitable for such a use. It was not being displayed on any Wikipedia pages. So I deleted it. I don't know if it is on Commons, I don;t work there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I know what happened. It probably got listed for restricted use and the bot simply tagged it as such which makes my bot the original author of the page holding the image. When you nominated it for deletion Twinkle got redirected to my page and left me a CSD notice. It makes sense now. Though, if the picture is on Commons, then the deletion was useless.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access16:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and request for help
This newbie thanks you for the recent "cup of tea" Kudpung, your kind comments were both encouraging and very much appreciated. I am though deeply confused to find that my next article - Nicholas Gresham Cooke - a British "double ace" fighter pilot has been nominated for deletion by a different editor despite the subject achieving (in my humble opinion) notability, he meets the Wikipedia criteria as an ace, also I believe he qualifies as detailed by Wikipedia criteria as an "ace in a day" and actually also had a "double ace" victory tally. I believe that men such as him gave their lives to allow us the privilege to enjoy our freedoms today and specifically freedoms such as Wikipedia. I don't understand the variance in editing and would be grateful for your advice. I envy you Thailand. Researcher1944 (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure KDS4444 was acting in good faith when listing it for deletion, but of course it was wrong. I've added a 'keep' vote and cleaned up your second comment - you can only vote once, and you forgot to sign. Keep up the excellent work with your well researched articles. If I had been born 25 years earlier I would certainy have been a Sptfire pilot. I just have to console myself with flying Cessnas! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you closed the WP:AfD discussion for What's 9 + 10 as CSD:A7 after ~3 hours. I disagree that it warranted deletion because the article in fact had a reference(Know Your Meme), and I was going to add more the next day. Regardless, CSD A7 would not apply because it is a fairly widespread meme and has significant third-party coverage. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of caveats here, one is: don't create articles in mainspace that are not ready for publication. I'm already aware from your argumentative attitude as a new user who 'knows it all' that you find it difficult to accept help, advice, and administrative decisions. My deleting of that article was perfectly legitimate but if you wish to contest it you are welcome to do so. At Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, I recently went through RfA and ultimately ended up withdrawing my nomination. I read through User:Sven Manguard/Failed RfA Advice, and one question I was left with was how appropriate it might be to directly thank anyone who participated. I grant that it might alienate anyone I didn't thank, but I'm less certain as to whether it would actually be considered inappropriate or whether it's typically done. I just feel that some people left particularly useful feedback, whether supporting or opposing my nomination, and I'd like to directly express my appreciation for that.
Hi Doniago. Personally I wouldn't bother, but I'm an old-fashioned, conservative sort of person. Most people do no send out any thankspam at all (hence the negative nickname for it). Send it by all means when your next RfA is successful, if you feel it's neccessary. Just my opinion. For the main RfA advice see WP:RFAADVICE. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I'm rather a believer in thanking people when I think it's merited, but I also don't want to do anything that might be perceived as unseemly. I don't think RFAADVICE had anything to offer on the matter, but I'll check it out again. DonIago (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are an advocate for some sort of de-adminship. Believe it or not, we are on the same side. There are several administrators here whom I think have long since gone over bridge into despotism and need to be removed from their positions. These administrators are often flippant, arrogant, insulting juuust to the border of violating WP:NPA, willfully ignore process and treat new, good faith editors as miscreants. Since they are well aware of the rules, they often skirt the edges of actionable territory, and rarely do something significant enough to bring the attention of ArbCom. In the 'government' of Wikipedia, this is a hole, one that we have no means of addressing. This is where de-adminship comes into play.
In 'real' life, I am often involved in systems development. I am all too aware of the severe impact of unintended consequences. Please have a quick look at Unintended_consequences#Causes, especially point #2. Systems analysts spend entire careers working to understand how complex entities work. Even with such people involved, unintended consequences can and do happen. Even in systems with Six Sigma control, there will be failures. Wikipedia does not have six sigma process control, nor any systems in place to even begin to work towards that. We have a haphazard system, without control or measures.
The first issue specific task in Eight Disciplines Problem Solving is D2; note it tasks us with identifying in quantifiable terms the problem. This is typical of any problem solving matrix. What frequently happens at this level of problem solving is for assumptions to be made in attributing the problem. Note that D2 indicates in quantifiable terms. This provides a benchmark for performance in solving the problem. Conjecture can not do that. Conjecture might help us look for where the problem is, but it will not help us quantify the problem. Without being able to quantify the problem, you have limited chance of success in solving the problem. And yes, far more things are quantifiable than most people think, even in social systems such as Wikipedia.
This is just scratching at the surface of what needs to be done to develop a system for de-adminship. Yet, little work in this area has been done. There's been some attempts to collect some data, but not much else.
Forgive me for the following. I truly mean no hostility, and hope you will take this in the good faith it is intended. I look at User:Kudpung/sandbox#Proposal_for_lightweight_desysop_process_.28CRAP.29 (the name is funny!) and become dismayed. This is a repeat of BARC, with just the bureaucrat element removed. I readily grant that removing the bureaucrat portion of BARC would have meant consensus would have been achieved on the latest RfC. This is what CRAP seems to do. But, I look at this proposal and I still see it full of holes. I could indicate all the failures of this system, but I am confident you would disagree. I still see the proposal seriously lacking in the very fundamentals I described above. You have a different perspective, I know, and that's fine. Nevertheless, I am extremely concerned about the unintended consequences of implementing any system without the proper groundwork being laid. Without such analysis, you could just as easily exacerbate the issue of declining adminship requests as you might increase them. People might view having such a system as a strong deterrent to applying for adminsip; so much crap to put up with only to lose your adminship in another bureaucratic mess. To say, as some have said, that good admins have nothing to fear is to sweep the issue completely under the rug and act as if it doesn't exist...but it does. Without analysis, we just don't know. It's just a guess.
There is a principle in leadership called the 70% decision. Colin Powell addressed this. Have a look at the 40-70 rule. There are some very important principles in there. I do not think everything needs to be analyzed to move forward. I do believe a lot of work needs to be done to get us to the 40% level. We're maybe (maybe) at 10% now.
There is a reason why every single attempt at creating a de-adminship process has failed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship#Proposed_processes. The pathway of good intentions in this area is littered with the bodies of ideas that died, and usually died hard. This isn't because of trolls or ne'er-do-wells who keep tripping these ideas up. There are extremely strong reasons why these proposals failed. Tweaking a proposal, any proposal, to attempt to remove opposition of some voters in the last proposal isn't the way forward. It fails to address the serious underpinning issues that have failed all processes before. Will such a strategy succeed? Absolutely. Tweak it enough to remove opposition, and it will pass. But, doing so will set the stage for a cataclysmic failure. If anyone wants to truly fix the problem, and have a solution that sustains as long as RfA has, then a considerable amount of work has to be done. Very little of that systems analysis, problem solving and benchmarking has been done.
If you need a real life example of unintended consequences, note how the on-paper wonderful idea of testing welfare recipients for drugs utterly failed. Have a look at this, which summarizes some of the failures. If you need evidence of unintended consequences of a de-adminship system, Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC_for_binding_administrator_recall#Statistics_from_German_Wikipedia. Since the first year of that system, 42% of administrators brought before their system didn't even contest it. They just gave up. This can not be glossed over.
If for no other reason (and there are many), this is why we must do this groundwork. Anything that passes without it is very likely to cause significant harm to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, TL;DR'ing the above...<yoda>That is why you fail</yoda>. I just timed myself reading the above. Less than 3 minutes. I posted this to your talk page to help you. You're ignoring it. You're free to do that, of course. Not that I am some sage monk sitting on a mountain and have all the answers, but not reading it will continue to set yourself up for the failures exemplified by the recently failed WP:BARC proposal. I am trying to help you. 3 minutes of your time isn't the end of the world. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to read anything I post to your talk page, or am I banned from your talk page? I'm just trying to help you. We're on the same side. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft: Admin have to read lots and lots AND LOTS of stuff. More than you can imagine, more than I imagined pre-admin. The pithy and concise comments get more attention, the long stuff gets glossed over a bit. This is also true when you provide links, which take longer to read. This is universally true, not just with Kudpung. Reading through, I can see how to easily cut half the words without losing meaning, for example. It may be that he already knows what you are saying, or read enough to simply disagree and not feel like arguing. Like myself, he's been involved in admin reform for years, there isn't much new. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noneless, Hammersoft came here to try and provide advice on staging a non-AC de-adminship proposal (Kudpung's current pet project) and it was rudely collapsed without so much as a "thanks for your comments". It could have just been left unreplied. –xenotalk14:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements to NPP pages
Hi Kudpung, I understand you're looking to maintain and improve the NPP pages, and I just thought I'd drop you a line before I did anything. Firstly, would it be okay to create NPP/Participants in a similar manner to how it exists on AfC? Samuel Tarling (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam. I've been doing that - time permitting - for the last 6 years! Things slowed down a bit when Scottywong retired. Yes, that page is on the list of things to do but I would wait with it until the RfC has been held to introduce some qualifications for patrollers like I did for AfC. I'm also waiting for some of Scott's old scripts to be revived so that we can see who is actually doing the patrolling on a day-to-day basis. If yiu know your way round regex and Python, there's a lot more you could do to help.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, go ahead and create the participants' page as you suggested, but bear in mind that it will not be populated until after the next RfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please contact user talk:Σ with a view to coordinating the work on Scottywong's tools. They have disappeared from the Labs server and are written in Python. You may wish to discuss unloading him of the tools that refer to various aspects of NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall if I've invited you before, so here's an invite. The project has changed somewhat after recent talk page discussions, with a focus on only one article per week now, to maximize the potential for collaboration. Before, we ran several articles per week. Check it out, Kudpung, we can always use additional experienced copy editors such as yourself! North America100012:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The IP is most probably Evlekis having his usual Friday evening fun on Wikipedia, so if you haven't already done so you should remove his ability to edit his talk page, and send email. Which is standard procedure nowadays for Evlekis socks. Thomas.W talk19:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evlekis doesn't like me since I spot too many of his socks, and too many of his vandalism attempts, even the sneaky ones. But then I don't like him either... Thomas.W talk20:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletions
I'm contacting you about your proposed deletions of several of my articles. I am in the process of editing them to address your concerns, but please understand this may take a couple of days because I run a farm and don't spend a lot of time on the onternet.White Arabian mare (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare[reply]
Hi, there's nothing I can do about the PRODs now that they are there but you do have 7 days to address them. You can avoid this with future articles if you prepare them first in you user space and then move them to main space when they are fully referenced and ready. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm popping by on some of them to de-prod and comment. I think we can work on these and get them up to speed, though my own time is a bit limited. Montanabw(talk)19:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RfA
Hi Kudpung.
I will admit that I sometimes "post long and loud" at WT:RFA. You challenge those people to run themselves, and I'm willing to take up that challenge. I have read through your criteria, and it appears that I do in fact meet the large majority of them:
Self-analysis compared to your criteria
(1) Subjective, as you mention, but I believe my behavior overall is consistent with that of a sane adult. I'm quite certain I don't habitually act like them;
(2) Yes;
(3) I do have over a year of experience, and would have a bit more by November or December;
(4) Yes;
(5) I don't meet this requirement precisely, but I would hope that three GAs and nine DYKs is sufficient. I'm also actively working on an article now;
(6) Yes;
(7) Yes;
(8) Yes.
(9) Roughly 7% of links in my CSD log are blue, but a considerable number are simply articles that were redirected or recreated after deletion, so they weren't actually declined. Therefore, I'm rather confident that I meet this criterion;
(10) If you count the Teahouse as a help desk, then I meet this requirement;
(11) Yes;
(12) Yes;
(13) Yes;
(14) Yes;
(15) Yes;
(16) Yes;
(17) Yes;
(18) Never blocked at all;
(19) Yes;
(20) Subjective, of course, but proportionate to all my comments I believe that I am quite civil, and of course I very much regret the occasional lapses that have occurred;
(21) No 3RR warnings;
(22) Yes;
(23) Yes;
(24) I admittedly have had some of my NACs reversed, but virtually all of them occurred months ago when I was still a newbie. I believe that I have gained a much better understanding of policy since then;
(25) I've pretty much stayed out of the admins' way;
(26) N/A;
(27) N/A;
(28) A subjective standard, but if I haven't made it clear I would want adminship so that I would have the necessary tools to help in additional ways, not to have a new badge;
(29) I have neutrally mentioned that I intend to run sometime in the near future, but most in-depth discussion has been limited to private discussion with prospective noms;
(30) As I said in 28, my intention is not to run just a get a car with lights and sirens.
There have already been eight or nine users (about five of them admins) I can think of who have stated that they would support an RfA of mine. I don't think I've ever seen anyone react negatively to the suggestion. Therefore, given the seemingly unusual amount of pre-RfA support, I think I've decided that I will run, but given your extensive work in RfA-related matters I would appreciate your opinion as well. As I mentioned above, I believe that I have shown that I meet the vast majority of your criteria. --Biblioworm03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing happened to it, it's still there. Its part of a whole suite of Wikipedia academies with a uniform look based on Worm That Turned's adoption page. I also made the one at the WP:CVUA. The NPP academy is inactive because rather strangely no one needs any qualifications to do it - that's why NPP is such a mess. Following the Curation Tool, the academy was created in anticipation of a user right for NPP which hasn't been introduced yet but in the light of recent developments may happen soon. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"May' happen soon. And in Wikipedia time it could be within the next year or so. It's part of a whole raft of related proposed modernisations and at the moment it's waiting for various stats to come back from the geeks who are helping us on this and from the Foundation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are not obliged to share the reasons but I'm a bit confused why this was closed as keep when all the votes were pointing towards delete? I realise this is not a matter of vote numbers but there weren't any votes for keep at all. Spiderone12:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That was the consensus. I realise that there were a lot of SPA (which may have been socks), but it is not neccessarily my brief to investigate that. If I were to discount those votes,the consensus would be 'No consensus' that would default to 'keep', or to relist. I an perfectly happy to entertain your further thoughts and even revert as required. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just I am not, do not represent nor am I employees by 2600hz. I realize that advocated including myself felt it was a popularity issue. However, I now understand more. Open Source projects while not gaining significant notoriety in the press, are still well known and relevant. Many opensouce articles on Wikipedia may fail initial WP:CORP but on my talk page[1], I cite additional known and independent publications that refer directly to 2600hz. Those in combination with world known tech news like TechCrunch and GigaOm, while not earth shatteringly well known, should qualify at "notable" and constitute a base in keeping that article.
Here are the additional articles referencing 2600hz from known independent sources as a leader in VoIP cloud open source: 2600hz in the Huffington Post. It's not an article about them per se, so I dot know if it qualifies. But the article is about VoIP services and a link to a blog post by 2600hz for an explication to support that article. Huffington is a reputable source. Does this count? :P [1] I also found this one from Tech.co, "Tech.Co (formerly Tech Cocktail) is a media company and events organization for startups, entrepreneurs, and technology enthusiasts" [2] and SD Times Magazine, run by BZ Media. According to their About Us page, "BZ Media has been on a rapid growth path, and was named to the list of Inc Magazine's 5,000 fastest-growing privately held companies in the U.S. for three years in a row (2007-2009)". They discuss 2600hz and quote co-founder Patrick Sullivan on page 2 of the article. It would appear they are independent and reputable. Here on The Next Web, "a technology focused media company founded in 2006", an article (and there are several more by the same author) about Twilio and referencing 2600hz in the article as a viable competitor. neurosys_zero (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think my reading of the consensus was correct. I do not read the article or search other pages for additional sources. If you would like a second opinion please take it to WP:DELREV. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, Just wanted to pop by to say that User:White Arabian Mare is a newbie with a lot of enthusiasm. I'm trying to keep an eye on her edits, but am pretty busy so not on-wiki as much as I sometimes am. I think she's worth mentoring and wish I had more time to do so. I gave her the ideas for some of the new horse articles she started and while she could benefit from mentoring and help, I think she's got her heart in the right place and, frankly, WikiProject Equine needs more interested editors. I commented on the pages of the articles that are in need of help, and I hope my comments clarify the situations. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions or want me to pop over somewhere to comment. Thanks. Montanabw(talk)19:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Skepper
Hi Kudpung, I just created an article on Charles Skepper, SOE agent, and I'd be grateful if you'd have a quick look. Any advice appreciated, it's taken some time and I don't want this one to get nominated for deletion in the way that my fighter ace article was. I have been here for a month now and I'm enjoying it. Thanks R44. Researcher1944 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Researcher1944. There's no fear of it being deleted. In fact it's almost GA quality and scope. I've made a couple of minor edits, mainly to punctuation, but you need to give it a thorough proof read because there are some other items I didn't change. References: always place them after a comma or a full stop - never in the middle of a sentence. The Lysander is also one of my favourite planes. Coincidentally I was watching the very last episode of Foyle (have live streaming UK TV here) two days ago which was also about the terrible losses of SOE agents in France. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kudpung,, appreciate it that's a little spooky I only just watched that Foyle episode and that was what inspired me to do this article. I'll remember not to do references mid-sentence, thanks. I'm thinking of doing an article on Jimmy McCairns DFC & 2 Bars MM the ex Spitfire pilot who was shot down in France, evaded capture to get home and then flew the SOE special duties Lysanders earning the DFC 3 times for bravery delivering agents to France and bringing others home. I reckon I'll do an SOE series and put him in with them. R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Intermediate School 75
I saw your article redirect and appreciate why you did it but I had just made the article and was compiling sources to build upon that article. Can we revert the redirect? TMazzio (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Unfortunately middle/intermediate schools are very rarely notable. Our criteria for notability are based not on referenced sources but on significance and importance. The sources simply confirm it. You school needs to have something really special before we can include it. Perhap you can try to convince me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay if I find anything like that I'll let you know :) Sorry for my confusion. TMazzio (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC
