This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program.
(Reverted edits by Lost Josephine Minor (talk) to last version by AnomieBOT)
I am just wondering why you reverted the last Improvements I made to the article I wrote about Maestro Alex Gregory. Most of what I did was to fix the references in a manner that you had actually suggested to me on my talk page. There is still a lot more to fix, but my time is limited. I also added a couple of sentences of some information from a newspaper article. I thought that strengthening the article was the right thing to do. I actually still have a lot more material that I have found, and was planning to put more in as time permits. So, please explain. Thank you. Lost Josephine Minor (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. It's the first time I've ever made a totally unintentional error like that in 5 years and 26,000 edits. Maybe an over-sensitive trackpad hovering over PopUps? I've reverted my edit. Please accept my most humble apologies, and keep up the good work. --Kudpung (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, looking back over what you were doing, I see you still haven't got the multiple ref system quite right yet. No worries, I'm going through and fixing it for you :) Kudpung (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A friendly invite
Hello Kudpung! I know we've had disagreements in the past but I truly respect your work here on Wikipedia especially in the area of French wines. Since the Wine Project initiative for February is improving French wine related articles, I thought I would bring this to your attention and see if you have any interest. I do regret our clashes in the past. I hope you take this invitation as an olive branch and an opportunity for us to work together in sharing our love and passion for great wine and making Wikipedia a tremendous resource. Take care. AgneCheese/Wine08:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Agne! I just noticed from my 6,000 page watchlist that you made a small edit to one of my favourite wines at Châteauneuf-du-Pape AOC. Yes, I really regretted overreacting, and Tomas sent me some encouraging words that I took careful note of. As you know, apart from my activities in Thailand, I'm a grower near CdP, so I didn't want you to think I was being rude by not responding to your kind invite to the French wine clean up campaign, but I have been tied up with some other important Wikipedia events lately. I will be returning to the wine project soon, and I hope to inject some more of my knowledge and refs to the wines of my region. Take care, and congratulations on all the hard work and dedication you put into the wine project. --Kudpung (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No truth to the rumor that I can see. You don't need special tools to find a user's history. For example, open the person's "User contributions" and you will see a link to the user's block log. He has a clean block log. --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I took the ban template at face value, that's why I didn't check the log - it's rare that anyone blocks or bans themselves! Nevertheless, I think it demonstrates a gross lack of maturity, IMHO perhaps not the kind of user who should be proposing articles for AfD. Up to you what action you take :) --Kudpung (talk)
Yes, it's a lack of maturity, but IMHO a large fraction of Wikipedia contributors have similar issues. Also, note that Wikipedia does not normally impose tests of maturity, sanity, command of the English language, or the like as prerequisites for initiating or participating in processes like AfD. IMO, removing the inappropriate templates from the user page and warning him were a reasonable response -- and should cause this user to think twice before doing that sort of thing again. Preventing future disruption is the main goal of Wikipedia interventions. Additionally, the user should be a bit chastened as a result of seeing how you reacted. --Orlady (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have read too much into what I said above. Note that it's a common error with rapid, anonymous written conversation. I think you might be misunderstanding mt knowledge of Wikipedia too - but again, note that it's a common problem at Wikipedia that we all go around treating each other as newbies just because we might not share the same opinion or interpretation of the sometimes very vague and/or ambiguous guidelines. Never mind :) --Kudpung (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I got constant edit conflicts and couln't get a word in edgeways untill I just plonked the message where I could. IMO, the SNOWs & NOTNOWs are a bigger waste of time, at least for the early !voters who might have spent a while doing their homework. Kudpung (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of forking this discussion all over the place, I've replied to Sphilbrick and I guess you too, Kudpung, at my talk page.--Atlan (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Herzog
Hi Kudpung. Thank you so much for helping me with the Brad Herzog page. I have added the citations you have requested. Could you please review and post if you feel it is ready at this point. Thank you kindly. Amyherzog (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amy. I've gone through it more thoroughly this time. There's still quite a lot to do, and I can't guarantee that even then it will pass the criteria for writers at WP:AUTHOR. First of all you need to find sources for all the claims I have marked with {{cn}} in the page code that look like [citation needed] in the text. The sources must prove that what you are saying about Brad is true, and they can't come from a website that has been populated by you or him - they must be reliable third party sources unconnected with you both. By reliable, we mean articles in the established press, that contain more than a fleeting reference to Brad in an article about something else. If the mentions are in web sites, then they should also be respectable sources - social networking sites that you and he can subscribe to and populate yourselves are obviously not acceptable. If you can't find a source for something, you'll just have to cut it out. The next thing is, that the article still reads exactly like something from a publisher's web site on one of their authors. The article really must be recast to avoid this, which means cutting out the long descriptions of his books which are listed any way in the bibliography. The same about his awards - they should preferably be taken out of the prose and left only in the awards section, and of course they must be supported by references too. Wikipedia pages may not in any way be construed as being the slightest bit promotional. It's a biography, and as such it's about the person, and not top heavy about his or her work. This is going to shorten the article quite a lot, and it might even avoid needing some sources that might be hard to get. Next: all books in the bulleted list should have the titles in italics, the year of publication, the publisher, and the ISBN number. It's the only way you can prove he really wrote them. It will look a bit like this:
Dancing on Tiptoe (2006) Rabbit Foot Press, ISBN 123456789
It's not 100% correct but it will do for now. Finally, all the web references that are left should be formatted so that they don't show bare URLs. The best place to understand that is at WP:CITE. I hope all this helps. Do remember that the very first thing to do is to find those references. Don't hesitate to ask again. --Kudpung (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a student at James Madison University in a copy editing class. We are working on a wikipedia project doing copy editing on public policy pages. I'd love for you to be my mentor if your up to it. Thanks for your time! Ohheyheidi (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, and thanks for dropping by. My first reaction on seeing that you are actually in a WRTC class, was that you may already be a better CE than I am! However, looking through your recent edits I have already come across at least one talking point, so I would be most happy to work with you on your project. For a bit more background on me, I am a retired professor of linguistics, an EFL teacher trainer, an author of series of EFL textbooks, and resident lexicographer for an old and well known series of bilingual dictionaries. Looking back over my career, I feel that most of what I know, I actually learned from my students, so I'm sure our work together would be a two-way process. Remember that I live in southeast Asia, so there may be up to 12 hours delay for a reply if I'm not actually online. I'm looking forward to hearing from you :) --Kudpung (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, the 12 hour delay is absolutely fine for me. I actually volunteered in Thailand for a month about 6 years ago so I knew there would be some connection here. I'm excited to hear back from you, I had inadvertently requested two mentors, but fortunately the one already had too many requests. My class is made up of about 25 students and we have all chosen our topics we will we be working on this semester. I chose Seed & Grain Loan Act. It might sound boring at first, but it's actually a pretty interesting topic and surprisingly a bit controversial. I'm still trying to get my bearings here on Wikipedia so I'll probably have some mistakes here and there. I look forward to working with you and am excited for the next couple months Ohheyheidi (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back! That article does not have a whole lot out there to extend upon and since it's my first article something with more information would be a lot easier. I've chosen the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Much more interesting, hope you think so too. Ohheyheidi(talk) 21:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, My apologies for the delay, but as you can see from my talk page header, I'm tied up in a jungle school development project in a remote area with electricity only part of the time and only slow satcomms for Internet, and this will last for just a few more days. For researching and writing great articles for Wikipedia, 50% of the effort is in understanding the meta stuff about Wikipedia - how the site software works, (and why it sometimes doesn't), how to set your preferences, how to use all the different talk pages, how to look up policies that must be followed and guidelines that should be observed, and how to use the editing tools. One of the first things I suggest we do is to set up a special page for our work together, and before that, I'm going to ask you to read up everything on this page, and this essay that I wrote. When you've done that, read WP:SAA, then check back here because there will still be things that have left you confused, and then we'll walk you through setting up a special page for the mentoring, and a special page for starting your draft article. Looking forward to hearing from you again, Kudpung (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've looked over the essays you suggested and got a lot of good material from them. I'm still not sure the proper wiki etiquette for talking back. Should I be talking back on your talk page, or on mine. Thanks!
Hi there. It looks as if we are talking at cross purposes here. From a comment on your talk page I have been under the impression that you have, or wished to, change mentors. I may have misunderstood something , and if I did, please accept my apologies. if you are happy to continue with me as your mentor, my suggestion ws that you first check out the way we format discussion threads on talk pages - this will make it easier to chat about things, and then we'll make a special talk page in your WP:user space to continue the mentoring. Let me know what your plans are, and we'll take it from there. Happy editing! Kudpung (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note
TerriersFan abruptly stopped contributing in October 2010. That kind of abrupt cessation of activity is always upsetting to me, as I fear the worst. Regardless, I doubt that you will get a response. --Orlady (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a million reasons why someone can abruptly stop editing. Let's not speculate, but rather work together as neutral admins and experienced editors in the best interests of the Wikipedia, and not of our own. --Kudpung (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for injecting an indication that I am a human with emotions. After 13 years of involvement in some largely anonymous online communities, I am very aware that people can stop contributing for any number of reasons, but I've also had several experiences in which online friends suddenly stopped contributing, and I later learned a tragic reason why they stopped. I've had TerriersFan's talk page on my watchlist for a long time, so I noticed today's activity on that page. I don't know why TerriersFan hasn't been here recently, but I can't help being concerned. As I said, regardless of the reasons for the lack of contributions, "I doubt you will get a response." --Orlady (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not tempt providence, it's morbid. Ironically his large message to anyone was to me. However, I'm glad you read that message because it demonstrates my concern for clarifying Wikipedia issues in a detached, and unemotional way - and if ever I get the mop, and an attempt may be coming soon, that will be the way I continue to work ;) --Kudpung (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for tickling a superstitious bone. I pledge to think benign thoughts about the reasons why others have slacked off in their contributions. Just FTR, the note I posted above was identical to one I posted on that other user's talk page. I figured he needed that advice and you did not, but I wanted to avoid the appearance of being selective in my communication. --Orlady (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, TH only contributed 5 relatively short edits to that page, and one very short thread on its tp. The page and its edu section were started by someone else in early 2005, unless it was the result of a move for which the history has got lost. Most of what is written on that page was finalised a couple of years ago, and what it says about schools has been graven in precedent a thousand times over since then, and I don't wish to see that overturned just to give the Wikilawyers something new to fight over. I wish I could drum up some new support for the WP:SCH. CT Cooper who founded the project has been a great help while I was nosing my way in, but even he admits that RL is getting very much in the way. I have the advantage that I can now Wikignome for 16 or more hours a day - but I'm more than twice the statistical age of the average Wikipedian! If I abruptly stop editing you can be pretty sure of the reason why ;) Kudpung (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Worcs stuff
Hi there, I've been editing a bunch of Worcestershire pages, and would like some feedback if you have time. They are:
Hi Jim. Thanks for your input. A random check would suggest that the edits are OK, however you have not made any edit summaries, and there is an unnecessary stacking of literally dozens of edits within seconds of each other which makes it impossible, even with pop-ups, to obtain a broad view. For this kind of work, please consider placing an 'in use' tag on articles, and consolidating your edits onto one or two major editing sessions. That way, the diffs will clearly show the edits without us having to reload the page each time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask again, I am always happy to be of help. --Kudpung (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Karthikndr, it's not going to be deleted, but it needs a lot of cleaning up. Please click all the blue links in the message I sent you, read the pages carefully and you will easily find out what needs doing. Please don't hesitate to ask me again if you get stuck, and remember to sign your messages so that I know who you are. --Kudpung (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey i have gone through many blue links as u said but i m still confused about the cleaning process in my school article. Please do go through article and help me about the things to clean up. Karthikndr (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some cleaning up for you. You now need to explain what kind of school it is, for example if it is a primary school, we can't accept the article, but if it is a high school for students up to age 18, then it will probably be kept. The page you should read for instructions is the one at WP:WPSCH/AG. --Kudpung (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it my best shot. I suppose I should be grateful that some constructive changes to the article were made, in part due to my efforts, but I'm more disappointed than pleased. I shouldn't have made the last comment at EAR, but at some point my sense of fairness overcomes my better judgment. At least, I made the comment significantly more oblique than originally worded (in my head). However, in keeping with the reduce-my-Wikipedia-anxiety campaign, I will probably shortly remove A Serious Man from my watchlist. Too much stress and too little support. I hope you don't find these comments annoying. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to the SVA page to remove mention of Meena Kim may be appropriate, however, now it is not clear to the reader how the Maxwell award is relevant to the school. I'm tempted to revert it unless you can find a way to mention how it is relevant to the article. WikiManOne00:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of individual recipients of prizes is not appropriate for encyclopedic articles about schools. The individual is not personally notable, and his/her award does not add to the notability of the school. Please remember that the effort with school article, as with all Wikipedia pages, is to remain neutral. You are welcome to rephrase the paragraph or sentence about the award if it lends notability to the school. However, much depends on whether this awards is one conferred by the school, the SVA, or an independent national or international award scheme. In deference to you work on school articles which is much appreciated, I have refrained from placing a warning on your talk page, but please remember to make edit summaries.Kudpung (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that neutrality is crucial in all articles, I'm just not aware that there is a policy or guideline that states that incidents/awards not involving notable people should not be included in articles... My understanding would be that if it is relevant to the school article, and it can naturally be placed within the body of the text with explanation of their relation to the article, it would be appropriate to list, but that's just how I've looked at it, maybe there is a policy that I've been missing? As to edit summaries, have you looked up my summary history? [1] Here it is:
Username: WikiManOne
Edit summary for all major edits: 89%
Edit summary for all minor edits: 98%
Edit summary for last 150 major edits: 100%
Edit summary for last 150 minor edits: 98%
Not exactly sure why you would warn me for edit summaries... lol. Anyways, just wondering why the names can't be included as it makes the articles more readable. WikiManOne04:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that on the page I was looking at, you hadn't made any, and it took unnecessary longer to see what was what. ES are not required by law, but are highly recommended, and there is a warning template for not doing it. I always complete them, even on my user space edits, and I think it's a courtesy to other editors who are interested in you work. Mentioning the names of people on any articles, who don't have linked pages and who are not notable in RL is superfluous to requirement. You haven't missed a policy that addresses this point directly, but most policies don't address every conceivable instance either. It is nevertheless hinted at in several parts of our notability policies, but reading up on it all in one session would be quite a challenge. I've been here 5 years, and done nearly 30,000 edits, and much of my work is on schools and BLP, and even I don't know it all. Very often, these policy issues reach consensus on the detail at local level on Wikipedia project page such as our WP:WPSCH and WP:WPSCH/AG. It's really down to common sense: Who is interested in 16 year old John Doe who won last year's French prize in Grade 10? I'm not. Even if it hit the national press, it does not confer notability. The general consensus is that these mentions are an attempt to enhance the school's image. I'm not suggesting that this was your motive, but as a specialist in school articles, I can tell you that a great many WP:SPA will go to any lengths to turn even a totally insignificant village primary school into the world's best educational institute - and we don't want to tell them to stuff beans up their noses. Generally, it suffices to say something like: In 2008, two students in Grade 11 won the Duke of Edinburgh Award for their project on environmental studies, and one student was selected to join the Manchester United junior B team. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your offer of help
Hi Kudpung,
even though it's late, I wanted to say thanks for offering your help. If I ever come around to try to write about language learning and such, I'll remember to drop you a note. Weidenkatze (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NPP accuracy
Thanks for your comments at my RfA. You mentioned that you were concerned about my "error rate at New Page Patrolling". I take speedy deletion/etc accuracy very seriously, so I would appreciate it if you would let me know what specifically you have found about my npp activities in the last few months – say, since October – so that I could work on those issues. Please don't take this as badgering, I don't expect this will change your vote in any case; I just want to understand what I'm doing wrong. Thank you very much! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erik, I apologise for, the late reply but I'm in a completely different time zone and I forgot to switch my status thingy to 'sleeping'. I'm sure you will understand that I cannot comment until your RfA is concluded, but I will be happy to discuss it further when the RfA is over in an hour or so. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no rush; I'd be grateful. I looked over my talk page and I couldn't figure out what you were referring to, so I'd appreciate any advice you have. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's going to be a close call. I know that you and I !voted differently, but that's not an issue. I'm more concerned right now at some of the extreme behaviour that was demonstrated by some of the participants. More reason, unfortunately, why too few good candidates are refusing to run for office. Heck, something has to change soon! Kudpung (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care that we !voted differently because we both left valid reasons for why did what we did. I you had just put "Oppose:Try again later" I would have scratched my head and wondered who is using your account. Kudpung, I really think you'd be a fina admin. Tofutwitch11(TALK)
Hi Eric. Congratulations again on getting the mop. I'm sorry I had to oppose your RfA, but so did many, and I'm afraid that's the way it goes. Basically you just did not pass any of my key criteria. You may have noticed that I am one of the major proponents of change at RfA, and there are indeed some issues concerning the behaviour of some of the !voters on your RfA that need to be addressed. I think a point for you to take is that most of the opposes were based on your low activity, and a desire to work only in one specialised area. While consensus is currently firmly against unbundling some of the tools, people are wary of according access to a whole bunch of tools without a guarantee that a new sysop won't use them. Therefore, as far as your NPP work is concerned, please don't think that was in any way the major issue of my oppose. It is true however, that there are several comments on your talk page and in its archives (without going into unnecessary detail) that address new page patrolling. Of all the new page patrollers we have, many of them have never even read the WP:NPP page and its guidelines, they have just copied their NPP uboxen from the user pages of other patrollers. In spite of the number of NPPers listed as members of the project, none of them appear to be taking an active interest in the project itself, and I am hoping soon to be able to recruit some of the more clueful editors to help out with the clean up, any backlogs that occur, and with some patrolling of the patrollers - for which I have recently had the user warning template reworded to be more friendly and encouraging, although I still find my own personalised messages, such as the one you received, to be much better.
Now that you have the mop, , I may ironically be the one to be asking you for help and advice occasionally, but I do hope you will take a firm interest in what's going on at NPP, and also, to take part in WT:RfA in an effort to stamp out the nonsense and incivility and to !vote more often on the process that got you there! Good luck with the bit, and best wishes, --Kudpung (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. Yes, I realized that this was only a part of your oppose rationale and that I fell short of a number of your criteria; I was just asking to see what I could do to improve. Some of the comments on my talk page precipitated from misunderstandings about what I had been doing; but all have been helpful, I think – I appreciate anyone's advice. I've read over WP:NPP a number of times, of course, but I hadn't really been following the discussions there or at WP:WPNP; I'll try to get more involved there and at WT:RFA. RfAs can get pretty crazy; mine was relatively tame and pleasant, I think. Thanks for all the work you have done in those areas! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought, maybe you could "credit" this editors efforts by at least copying his "gibberish" to the Talk-page. Where's the harm? --Raphael112:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OE - I'm terribly sorry, I completely forgot you asked me to let you know if he did it again. Anyway, it's been sorted, he and all his socks have been blocked, and the page has been protected. Kudpung (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! I noticed that typo a long time ago but I just couldn't be bothered to change it. The main thing is the author has now been blocked for a while. Kudpung (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Argentine Boy. Please read WP:WPSCH, particulary the sections on notability, and what not to include, and do have another look at the special welcome message I put on your talk page. If there's something your don't understand, don't hesitate to ask for further advice.--Kudpung (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was an extremely kind offer, but as there are already a couple of heavyweights backing the projects, it probably won't be necessary. It would be much appreciated however, if you could chime in with some of the highly relevant comments you have made already. I will be replying in more detail in an hour or so when the jungle's dawn chorus quietens down a bit. --Kudpung (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LfM. Unless primary schools are really notable for something, we generally redirect to the page about their town or village, if there is one. It's not a controversial action and can be done without a merge request. It's not a 'delete' and should the subject ever become notable, the redirect can simply be undone and turned back into an article page - the page history remains all the time intact. You can read all about the special cases of notability for schools at WP:WPSCH/AG. It's also worth noting that while many stubs can and do become fully fledged articles in the long term, creating ones that are most unlikely to be expanded and/or notable is not encouraged. I've done the redirect. Hope this helps. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Malvern GAness
I'm almost delirious with tiredness at the moment, so I'll keep this brief (I don't mean to be curt). Regarding your talkpage message on Malvern, it is worth nothing no-one can delist a good article with one click. Correct delisting procedures are outlined here. Regards, - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]19:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A subtlety entirely lost on my tired self, I'm afraid - I didn't mean to patronise; I didn't think it was obvious anyway given the GA process that they couldn't be delisted on a whim. Not sure I agree with your exaggeration, mind, but I can see where you were coming from :) And yes, I am an admin, albeit a rather inactive one focussing on a few small areas. - Jarry1250[Who?Discuss.]20:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Say it ain't so! But oh well, to be honest you probably could have just hit the keyboard a few times and I would have still believed you were fluent. Some languages are just totally unfamiliar to me.--Yaksar(let's chat)01:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did live and work for several months in a remote part of Finnland way back in 1973, but I have forgotten most of what I learned. Enough to know that Google for a short message like this won't be too far off! --Kudpung (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Do you feel like joining battle (again) on the subject of rhoticism (is that a word?) in British placenames, see here. No-one, but no-one, round here rolls the r - pronunciation is either YAWK or YAAK (I am no IPA expert). Best. --GuillaumeTell01:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! That old chestnut rearing its ugly head again huh? You remember I stepped in for others before on this topic a long time ago and allowed myself to be bullied off by personal attacks and strings of invective all over the 'pedia by an admin. Golly, I was a real rookie in those days! I'll have to think about it. There's no hurry. Kudpung (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bold perhaps, but certainly not foolish. The problem as I saw it was that all the Wikipedia articles on linguistics and the IPA appeared as if they may have been mainly controlled by a small group of editors among whom are some newly qualified linguists, and ones with an excellent knowledge of the IPA. They certainly know their stuff and are a match for me at my own game. What they don't appear to know is that rhotic English is far from practiced all over the world, and that their attempt to use a rhotic based pan-dialectic IPA transcription has not met with the approval of the rest of that world. The UK Wikipdians did not seem to appreciate being told by non British editors how they ought to be pronouncing the names of their cities. At the very worst, you'll start an edit war, but be caeful of 3rr. --Kudpung (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes reverted in a way. But they do not appear to follow the MOS conventions that allow for the respect of national culture and ethnolinguistics. See WP:ENGVAR, which I firmly interpret to mean that the primary IPA pronunciation should be that of the country of the town's location. By reverting the rhotic /ɔr/ and replacing it with /ɔː/ he admits to non rhoticity, but restores the 'local', which you and I would understand to mean a pronunciation that is generalised around York itself. It would appear to be a subtle ruse to insist on keeping the rhotic pan-dialectic IPA system they have devised for the Wikipedia. And we're back to where we left off in January last year. Kudpung (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help!!
Can you please help me out with this article-Ooty? I was editing the infobox when suddenly the whole article went out of shape. It's LIVE now! Please help.--SurajT06:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if it's been fixed already. I can't make out what the problem was - it might have been that you tried to add some parameters that a re not supposed to be in the template, or it might have been this: {{,}}. There ae alot of functions programmed into infoboxes tha we don't always know about. If something like this happens again, don't panic, just revert your edit again. One way to do it is to click the 'undo' in the edit history. Kudpung (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got worried with no reply and asked a few others. I thought of undoing my edit but I did multiple edits taking a lot of time to find sources. Its fixed now. Thanks a lot for taking time to look into the article. Good day.--SurajT03:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tip: If you are going to do a lot of edits in one session, consider working on a copy of the article in your user space (WP:sandbox), or on your own hard disc. Of course, on your own computer you would have to enter all the Wiki markup manually - which is OK if you can remember it all ;) Kudpung (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My userspace drafts
Hi Kudpung, following on from the previous discussion on my talk page, I have been working on a draft to revamp the WikiProject at WP:UW and bring together its various pages. I would be very grateful if you would have a look through my work (if you have time) and make any suggestions for improvements. The main page of the draft can be found at User:Pol430/Sandbox/WikiProject user warnings. Best wishes Pol430talk to me23:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I keep checking in on your draft already, although I haven't done so for the last couple of days. I'll certainly let you now if I have any suggestions.
Feel free to steal any of the code from my user or talk pages, some of it is based on stuff I've seen elsewhere anyway - what goes around, goes around!Kudpung (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out Tony. I guess it was an accumulation of this new editing window they've forced on us, and the very poor Internet connection I have at the moment (I can't use the 'preview' mode. AfD !vote reposted. Kudpung (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - the article in concern, Lulu Popplewell, has been significantly edited since you commented on the deletion discussion. The discussion is now re-listed to generate a bigger consensus, and I hope you'll read the article as it is now and add further comments onto the deletion discussion. --Deryck C.11:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you are personally involved with the subject, I can understand your concern. Nevertheless, all AfD I comment on are on my watchlist and I follow them closely. However, in this particular instance, there is no real need for me to make additional comments as the closing admin will take all those new developments into consideration. --Kudpung (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done though I'm curious to know why you asked me, because I've never worked on the article. Nevertheless I'm flattered and pleased to have been able to help. By the way, did you know that you are perfectly free to make corrections like this yourself? If you need help on how to do it, don't hesitate to ask me again. --Kudpung (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.
Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!
Glad to have the opportunity to discuss this with you one on one. First of all, please forgive my lack of savvy with regard to wiki style, format and quality standards.
That said, the writer featured in this article is at least as notable as several others of the same generation, many of whom the author knows personally. But that part is debatable. What's a matter of public record are the published books, articles, essays, review and translations, dating back to 1978 and appearing in many major national publications here in the U.S. In a living author, the quality or "notewortiness" of those is impossible to determine.
What's a matter of historical record is the fact that the author comes from a literary family with a major role in African American and American literature. If you do a wiki or google search on the subject's maternal great Ida Cullen Cooper (Ida Mae Roberson), you will find many reputable cites. Ida Cullen-Cooper's marriage to Harlem Renaissance poet Countee Cullen is well documented. There are living relatives and literary executors that can confirm this. Also, the name Countee Cullen appears in virtually every book published about the Harlem Renaissance. Countee Cullen's relationships with James Baldwin, W.E.B. Du Bois (both wiki article subjects) and many others is indisputable. The author has followed in the family tradition of writing to critical acclaim about subjects like James Baldwin and W.E.B. Du Bois for national literary publications in the United States. The author studied with one of the major Spanish-English translators in American literary history. Transcripts could be produced to support this in necessary. The author has followed in his mentor's footsteps by translating historically important articles and books from Spanish to English. Notability? How many people have done or are doing that?
In short, to argue whether this author is "notable" is a matter for literary criticism. To document the writer's involvement in the literary activitity of his time is a simple matter of public record, and is much easier to do. That is all I attempted in this article.
Kudpung, I'm happy to vet this article with you line by line and reference by reference. I'm quite confident that any references in it can be documented, whether by means of high school and college transcripts or any other means. But I'm sure wikipedia doesn't need that level of detail. After all, the subject is a professional biographer. If you're saying that the sources are unclear, that's one thing. If you're saying that the subject is "unimportant", that's quite a different matter.
Please let me know in each instance what documentation and/or online citation you need to remove the tags, and I'll be happy to comply.
As I said before, I'm inclined to leave well enough alone at this point. Better to have something imperfect than to have nothing at all.
Also, I have the author's permission to use a standard headshot in the infobox. Again, it's just a question of what proof you need. I have emails to and from wikimedia documenting the process.
Hi. I am copying this to your talk page in order to keep the discussion in one place. Strictly, it should take place on the article talk page where any other interested parties can voice comment and perhaps help you. Kudpung (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kudpung. One of the classes working with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, Jonathan Obar's Media and Telecommunication Policy, is working in small groups and would like us to assign a mentor to each group (rather than having students request the mentors they'd like, as other classes are doing).
I invite you to sign on as the mentor for one or more groups, especially if any of the topics catch your interest. To sign up, go to the course page and add yourself as "Mentor: you" in the section for that group. They students and/or professor or campus ambassadors should be cleaning things up soon to list all the usernames for each group and add a few more groups. Once you know who the students are in the group, you can leave them each a quick introduction to let them know you'll be mentoring their group.
I see references as falling into three categories:
References which support notability.
References which support a factual claim in the article (but may not help the claim of notability)
References which do not support a factual claim in the article.
Only references in Type 1 are considered when determining whether the subject is notable. The Type 1 references must be of sufficient quality and or quantity to establish the notability of the subject.
Type 2 references serve a different purpose and are (lloely speaking) necessary or useful to support factual claims in the article.
Type 3 references should be removed from an article.
I don't think this is controversial, and I'm not writing this as a formal definition, so I'm not making sure I have the exact words, just want to make sure we are broadly on the same page.
My concern is the possibility that the editor might read your list and think you are suggesting all are type 3. I don't think that is your intent. For example, I think you are saying that reference 14 is type 3, and does not belong in the article. In contrast, I think you are saying that reference 1 is a Type 2, and is perfectly fine for supporting the claim the book exists and the wrote it, but the reference does not fall into Type 1, so is not an assertion of notability.
I don't believe you expect that all or even most references must be of Type 1, but you've examined all references and have not found one that qualifies.
Again, this may be straightforward, but if I get involved in discussing the issue with the editor, I don't want to be at cross-purposes. I also want to be open, so if I do decide to get involved (later in the week if at all, too busy at the moment), I would link to this discussion.--SPhilbrickT20:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sphilbrick. Thanks for your input on this. At this stage, I have deliberately only provided an accurate and detailed description of each source. On the face of it, some should not be in the article at all (Type 3) because they clearly do not contain any mention of the subject at all (reference bombing). Some establish without doubt that he has written a book, a magazine article, a blog article, or done a translation (type 2). None of the references AFAICS, appear to contribute anything to the subject's notability (type 1) and are not of sufficient quality and/or quantity to establish the notability of the subject.
My summing up is that what we have here is a person who:
has written two thin books (average 112 pages each). Established and verified.
not written any books that appear to have received critical acclaim from established independent sources, such as the literary sections of the überregional press, recognised literary magazines, peer-reviewed journals, or TV. If they have, why is it not mentioned in the article?
written one blog style review that has not received critical acclaim from established independent sources, such as the literary sections of the überregional press, recognised literary magazines, peer-reviewed journals, or TV.
is claimed by one secondary source to have contributed to London Times Literary Supplement, Washington Post, Bookworld, and others - but is not verifiable, and such a broad statement about his contributions does not alone assert notability.
has one run-of-the-mill translation (not difficult), that has not received critical acclaim from established independent sources, such as the literary sections of the überregional press, recognised literary magazines, peer-reviewed journals, or TV. If it has, why is it not mentioned in the article?
is the subject of a nondescript interview that has not been published in a reliable source. E-zines and/or blogs are not as reliable as the electronic pages of reputable print media.
has ancestry that may or may not be notable (not confirmed). This mention in the article and its references are perhaps of secondary interest but are strictly irrelevant and any notability cannot be inherited by the subject.
is claimed by the article creator to have made translations, but which, in the source provided, are in actual fact attributed to a translation agency without credit to any individual translator(s).
has not received critical acclaim, awards, or substantial independent reports on his work as a translator in strong WP:RS - or at least nothing of this kind is mentioned by the creator of the article. (note my personal comments below).
My conclusion is that the article is COI by a SPA in an albeit GF endeavour to promote the image of an employee of a translating agency who has co-authored something that has found its way into print. The subject has therefore apparently done nothing to arouse special interest that asserts notability for a Wikipedia article, and hence fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and most specifically, points 1-4 of WP:AUTHOR. As such , it is a candidate for AfD in which the community can decide on its future. I am not concerned about the outcome. I am concerned about conformity with WP policy, but if I am wrong on anything, I'll willingly stand corrected - none of us know it all here :)
Note that many WP:SPA do not appear to consider that we - or even other readers - will check up on the references that they provide.
It's my guess (and I can only say this on my talk page) that the COI is either by the subject himself, or his marital partner; his publisher or literary agent would probably not make the same grammatical errors of syntax, or fail to understand the use of talk pages after so many requests. Because this subject is so low-profile, I cannot imagine any other person wanting to write a Wikipedia article about him. I am a published author (books, textbooks, peer reviewed journals, and contributing feature editor to leading national newspapers, etc.,) a professional translator and owner of a translating company (among other things) so I know a little bit about the world this subject is coming from. One of the greatest frustrations of the thousands of translators who all have a BA, is that they receive little recognition for their daily work - its 'just a job'. Most of them are not recognised academics, and many of them aspire, sooner or later, to writing something themselves; look how, for example (not that I care in the least), the WP:GOCE editors get barnstars for every 4,000 words of text they clean up, but my 9,000 word Brontë translation and partial rewrite to conform to en.Wiki, and which was requested by Wikipedia, hardly got a word of thanks! Kudpung (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the narrow question of whether we are on the same page, it sounds like we are. I had not focused on the issue of whether the subject met the notability hurdle, but I agree, it sounds like the current answer is no.
I admit to conflicting emotion on one point: when I see an editor throw up a couple of paragraphs and a sketchy reference, I have no qualms about deleting, even if there is a potential for notability. However, if I see obvious signs of work, multiple paragraphs, some attempt at organization, and a number of references, it pains me to delete for roughly equivalent assertions of importance. I know that isn't right, and I think I'll get to the right decision in both cases, but I feel bad supporting deletion in the case of clear effort. While your instincts are likely right that there is a COI, there has been some effort. (On the flip side, picking up on another point you made, there is the possibility that the editor could not find the particular issue mentioning the subject, and added the splash page on the assumption that no one would check. Maybe. I'd prefer to assume that the editor felt that a link to the publication was better than no link at all. I disagree, but it is a plausible position to hold.
On the subject of barnstars, I'm fascinated by the phenomena. It makes a lot of sense in a organization which is both volunteer, and has very limited hierarchy, thereby depriving the organization of two of the principle ways of rewarding performance—money and promotions. I know some editors eschew (or claim to eschew) barnstars, but I've been pleased to get the few I've received. However, I've noticed that I can do a fair amount of work in one area and get nothing, then do something relatively minor somewhere else and get one. I'm merely observing, because the only way to do better would be to impose a bureaucracy, and I don't want that.--SPhilbrickT13:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both on Kevin Brown and Barnstars, we appear to be on exactly the same wavelength and that reminds me of a private discussion we had many months ago. There's a lot more here on what I have to say about policy, and I'm sure that even an SPA with COI can be writing in good faith, and it troubles me very often to have to bin all the hard work they've put in. Kudpung (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries James, it was just to thank you for all your help and kind advice. It didn't actually get sent after all because there was an Internet breakdown for a couple of hours this morning and I couldn't get back on line for a while. The party is over here. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The education claims are unsubstantiated by any reliable sources that pass verifiability and do not belong in the article. Furthermore, so much smoke and mirrors has been detected in this article that the question has been raised whether the article belongs in Wikipedia at all."
Your language here "so much smoke and mirrors has been detected" is contentious. You are trying to incite people to anger. The article as it was originally written was fully transparent, and possibly one of the best resourced articles posted on Wiki. When I take on a project, I do not do the job halfwayLost Josephine Minor (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am clearly biased - in favour of Wikipedia policies. With all due respect, you are citing the above out of context, and your edit count and involvement on Wikipedia does not suggest to me that you fully understand the principles of notability upon which our policies are based. To accuse me of inciting a riot is the very essence of personal attack for something in which I have merely consolidated the opinions of other participants into one comment. The only person who is offended is yourself - which is quite understandable in face of the hard work you have put into the article. It is not my fault that the references you have provided do not meet our requirements at WP:RS and WP:V. The true story around this article is not on the WP:AfD page (which is where the article has landed), but at Talk:Alex Gregory for neither page of which you have cared to provide me with a link. I am genuinely quite happy to discuss this and offer as much help as I can, but only if you are prepared to click on the blue links in the instructions at the top of this talk page.Kudpung (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Golly, there's little I can do here but !vote on the side of deletion. All local stuff, no refs for the awards; can't vouch for the paywalls and tat's a pity. You seem to have said the essential, I'll have to agree. --Kudpung (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for the paywall articles. I have a subscription to Highbeam, and in fact added the refs as the article was previously completely unreferenced. The reviews are for very local productions with small and/or semi-professional companies. There is one article about her in the Boston Globe (480 words) - sort of a "local girl might be about to make good" piece. It was the only reason I didn't immediately !vote delete, but I'm certainly inclining that way, given the lack of breadth and depth of coverage which isn't compensated for by fulfilling any of the alternate criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's it then. It looks also very much as if she wrote it herself too, although that's not a deletion criterion now that you have removed any puffery. If you change to delete and say the same things you said above, it will show you tried. Kudpung (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sasodei
I see that you tagged Sasodei for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but the article was about fictional people, and so didn't qualify. I have, in fact, deleted the article anyway for a different reason (promotion), but I thought I should let you know. A good deal of care is required in using speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NPP checklist
I think it would be helpful to put together a practical checklist for new page patrollers, listing the things they should be checking on each article. I've started a rough draft at User:Snottywong/NPP checklist, trying to gear it towards newer, less experienced users, and giving them links to the pages they'll frequently need to access. Take a look and add anything you think is missing, or let me know if you have comments. I still have a few things to add, and I also can't figure out how to get the collapsed sections to justify left instead of center. —SW—communicate01:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If my RfA succumbs to the continued arguments of the likes of !voters who really believe that I will delete articles simply because they are written by children, I may just return to content editing and leave all and any policy and meta matters well alone. Simply because I won't have to wrack my brain so much, and won't have to keep pestering syops to do the admin stuff I come across.
Some of the hair-splitting on my RfA is specifically due to the difference in status between policy pages, guideline pages, and essay-advice pages, and I feel that any changes to the WP:NPP guidelines are sooner or later going to be called for consensus at a WP:RfC, particularly where at least one highly outspoken editor seems to have a total disregard for NPP as a process, and who now appears (only 'appears' for the moment) to disagree with everything and anything I say anywhere on this encyclopedia project where our paths cross. Your suggestion at User:Snottywong/NPP checklist is excellent and I will answer over there. Kudpung (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can imagine that I truly understand how frustrating RfA can be. Keep your head up though, you're doing a hell of a lot better than I did. —SW—chat04:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You left me a talkback for the "Possibly unfree File:AdditionOfMaestroToPassport.jpg" section of your talk page, but there's no such section, and I don't remember interacting with you recently. Was this a typo, or did you leave a message for the wrong person? No complaints; I'm just confused. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh golly, I'm sorry. I'm a bit confused today. I was indeed very involved with the AfD of that article, but had nothing to do with its images. I was probably looking at someone else's tp who was caught in the crossfire. Slap my wrist or go and oppose my RfA! --Kudpung (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note about Dubai Gem Private School. I haven't had time yet to delve into the issues with the current article, but I can assure you that the article that DGG deleted was an obvious speedy-deletion case -- the current article does not resemble the article that was deleted. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it probably doesn't because I cleaned it up in an attempt to save it. It still doesn't look very, notable to me with 1-month old 'students' and dubious refs, but as I don't have anything to do with the schools project, school articles, or their AfDs anymore perhaps you can apply the right policy. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make myself clear enough. The "article" that was deleted did not look like an article. The recreated article does not resemble it in any way -- and has not resembled it at any time since it was created. --Orlady (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then, but I'm not concerned with it since I don't have anything more to do with school articles. Thanks for taking it on. --Kudpung (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung! I have done some work on the page, added secondary sources and separated external sources from research publications. Do you think that the two templates can be removed now? Toots5446 (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toots. Ref No.2 (BBC) does not mention Bursztein
Twitter is not a reliable source, but I'm not sure how this rule is affected in this instance - you could ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
The Blackhat site does not appear to mention Bursztein, but as it's just a blog-style list of hundreds of conference speakers it may have changed since you saw it.
The Grossman blog is a blog and is not reliable. The mention of Burstein is only in a list, but the links might take you to a more reliable source.
Try to use some of the 'p' notes as references in the reference section. On the whole, I have no doubt that Bursztein is notable from his work on CAOCHAs and web browser security, but the problem is that we need sources that are more concrete than these. Apart from that, the article is well researched, and cleanly presented, and there's no danger of it being deleted - at least not by me. Ask me again when you've done some more research for source, and do take a moment to read WP:RS. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a BLP is sourced solely by the subject's website, does it still count as being sourced for purposes of deciding whether or not to tag the article with {{BLP unsourced}}? I can't seem to find any firm guidelines on this. Some discussions I've seen say it must have a reliable source. Others say that it must simply have "a source" for the content. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi VdT! The current interpretation of the rules are that any link anywhere on the article page to an outside webpage that supports any item in the article in any way, precludes the use of the BLPROD template. So if in doubt, use a standard PROD and complete the rationale in the normal manner. The BLPPROD does not have a field for rationale. Erring on the side of caution, I never use the BLPPROD if there are any external links whatsoever, but there are others who may work differently. The BLPPROD has now been in use for 11 months, and I will shortly be putting it under review. I'm looking for some diffs to back this up for you. Back later. --Kudpung (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's what I thought. I've just added a normal PROD to Claudia Pop. We're getting so sick of non-notable opera singers and/or their agents deciding to "raise their profile" with a WP article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These snippets from talk while we were developing this BLPPROD will help:
and this is the actual policy:WP:BLPPROD , but it does not go into detail on this point.
When I get round to launching the RfC on the review of the BLPPROD's performance over its first 12 months (if someone else doesn't beat me to it!), I would like to invite your expert input because you have access to all the print media and paywall sources, and because your project, and music related projects, are the ones that attract such a huge number of poorly sourced BLPs and mass produced single-source stubs - remember that Operissmo web site (or whatever it was called?)
BTW: I'm not on your project, but don't hesitate to list on my talk page any problem BLPs you come across - I'll look for sources and chime in at AfD if necessary. Kudpung (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After I raised the "operissimo issue" at WikiProject Opera last November [3], this has fortunately abated considerably. Let me know if you see any more new ones popping up. As for paywall sources, I don't have access to them all, just those at Highbeam research, but it's pretty good, and several members have access to Jstor and the Oxford databases. But I'll be happy to give input at an RfC, just give me a shout when it happens. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
