...for your very prompt action on my request for rollback. Happy New Year (from a very slightly older vintage but one who still remembers being a student in 1968). Peter coxhead (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the history is of the two articles and when and how they were created, I think Howard School (Rainham, Kent, England) is unnecessarily long for a disambiguation. Anyone searching for just 'Howard School' will fall on the official dab page anyway. If a page move is logical and generally follows page naming conventions, a discussion is unnecessary, but per WP:BRD if someone disagrees with the move, then there should be a formal move discussion, the outcome of which should concur with policy rather than personal likes/dislikes of those taking part in the move discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there probably isn't a lack of agreement. It just needs some research doing. For example, there are literally thousands of schools worldwide named after St Joseph; how do we disambiguate them all? Find this out, and there's your answer - precedent does not need a discussion, just a reporting of the numerical facts, just as in the same way that we accord special conditions for the notability of schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably know, I have been actively creating a large amount of articles for the Eulimidae family of gastropods, normally when I create these articles, I add the Caenogastropoda-stub tag to the bottom line. Now, I have thought about creating a stub tag especially for the Eulimidae family (much like with the Pyramidellidae family) but I have to admit, does this minor, misunderstood, unknown family of gastropods really need its own stub template? I'm not entirely sure, but I thought it would be best if I expressed my opinion to a more advanced contributor (you, of course). Even if creating a stub template for this family was acceptable, I would unfortunately have difficulty in proceeding with this action, due to my lack of programming and scripting skills, but nobody can be perfect at everything. Thanks, and have a splendid year while in 2013! Solo Toady (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with your recent comments at RfA ... your work identified a clear problem, that is, people aren't running as much as they used to (and they're not even doing all the good work that people do when they're getting ready to run), because they're not willing to run the gantlet. In fact, I think it's even a little broader than that ... I don't know many Wikipedians who are excited about getting thoroughly pawed over even by a lot of kind and knowledgeable Wikipedians ... and we're never going to enforce "kind and knowledgeable" at RfA. I'm hoping that Jimbo indicates that we've got time to put something together ... if so, one of the options I'd like to see us submit for his consideration is something that ... in some fair and non-disenfranchising way ... reduces the number of people commenting and voting. Do you have any favorite options at this point? - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are broadly four kinds of voters at RFA: fans and detractors, children who think it's cool to mess around in meta areas, mature editors who do plenty of research and vote dispassionately and objectively, and users who simply can't leave off causing drama and for whom RfA is the one place where they can express themselves in an unpleasant manner with impunity. Anyone who disputes these four categories just needs to review the last 200 RfA (about 3 year's worth) to see the same names constantly cropping up at least for significant periods if not for the whole 3 years. The first category is in fact largely made up of one-time voters and those that don't fit any of these four clearly identifiable groups, are generally a transient pool also largely of one-time voters passing through the various meta areas out of curiosity.
The RfA system is not broken and surprisingly does its job quite well - those who should pass, do, while those who shouldn't generally don't, and borderline cases are extremely rare. There nevertheless remains the toxic environment that is dissuading/discouraging editors of the right calibre from presenting their candidacy. I've spent three years thinking of ways to address this problem and all I can come up with are:
Minimum qualifications for voters (practiced by some other large Wikipedias)
Clerking: Removal of PA, incivility, & and clearly inappropriate votes
More enforcement of discipline: topic banning of those who show a pattern of insincere participation, and instant topic banning in more serious cases. For too long, RfA has been the one venue where blockable offenses are tolerated with impunity. Whether people agree with the outcome or not, perhaps the Malleus issue will now serve as a warning and set a precedent for levels of participation.
All we really need to do is run these ideas past the community in well crafted and well publicised RfCs and just see what happens - there are only three possible outcomes: accepted, rejected, or no consensus. Some are already drafted and ready to go at a moment's notice, but for obvious reasons I'm not going to be the editor who signs the opening RfC statement - I've suffered enough crap from a handful of rather unpleasant people already, and much more of it and I'll be the next admin to lay down his tools and retire, but I don't want to give them that satisfaction. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How far would you personally be willing to go with the "minimum qualifications" bit? At some (very high!) level, that becomes WT:RFA#Rfacom. From your first sentence, RFA voters include: "fans and detractors, children who think it's cool to mess around in meta areas, [and] users who simply can't leave off causing drama and for whom RfA is the one place where they can express themselves in an unpleasant manner with impunity." In that case ... why would anyone want to run for RfA unless they were exceptionally motivated? - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to say where the bar would be set for voter qualifications because the paradox is that the candidates themselves don't need any. In Wikipedias where there is a minimum requirement for voters, there is also a minimum requirement for candidates, so that makes the whole idea of voter quals more acceptable. On those Wikipedias, the process is very much the same as ours although one of them has split it into a straight vote on one page and all comments on the talk page. On the two other Wikis that I can read at perfect native language level, the participation is noticeably more more polite than on en.Wiki, although many votes and comments are also subjective. Generally, those other Wikis having come into existence later, have learned by the mistakes at en.Wiki and established their rules from the beginning. Quals for voters would kick out most the newbs (most of whom appear to fall into the group of enthusiastic but inexperienced youngsters) and I would probably recommend 3,000 mainspace edits excluding vandal patrols, and 6 months tenure, and never been blocked in tha pst 12 months. We don't actually need a bar for candidates because the community practices unwritten minima that hover around 9 - 12 months, 6,000 edits, and 12 months block-free - anyone with much less is going to fail anyway.
What to do about the groups wannabe admins and the core of regularly unpleasant, but chronologically mature voters who have an otherwise good record of content work? Well, one who has a very long (but contentious) block log ended up being topic banned, but the problem here is that all Arbcom cases only deal with a single complaint at a time and do not take into account a user's pattern of disruptive editing or anti-social collaboration. The solution there again, is clerking: either by appointed clerks, or by a Bureaucrat (or both), both of whom should be declared as the clerk(s) for the RfA and who will recuse themselves from voting an/or closing. I'm still very optimistic that this is all that needs to be done to clean the system up; there are some very interesting and intelligent ideas being floated now - mostly all in a last ditch attempt to avoid RfA being wrested from the hands of the community - but by abandoning the current system completely we would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What needs to be done is to potty-train the voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to see how the RfC goes, but I'm assuming that, if we're going to present five options to Jimbo, something along those lines would be one of the five, because that came out of the extensive discussions in 2011 (and thanks for that, btw). I'm waiting to see if there's any objection to working on 5 plans at once, and waiting for Wales's response. - Dank (push to talk) 11:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Social/structural change at Wikipedia
If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, most of the items on this list are topics whose discussion always peters out before any consensus is reached. Wales really has no executive powers and whether or not the community listens to him (his comments are usually sound) it won't make any difference to the way the Wiki works. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
East Germany page: time to remove full protection?
Hi Kudpung. A bit over a month ago, you fully protected the page East Germany until April, due to edit disputes and 3R. Recently we've had a lot of discussion on the talk page about how to improve the article, specifically about rewriting its lede. Good progress towards consensus! Latest draft lede has been approved by editors who disagreed strongly with each other about earlier ones. What to do now? I've considered putting in an "Edit Protected" request... However, because the changes we're discussing are quite extensive, I think it would probably be better to remove the full protection to enable ongoing tweaks. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:StratColl logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really bothered. Over the years I've screen-shot and uploaded hundreds of school logos - at least if they come from the school websites there's a chance that they are the official logos, but others may have been scanned from equally official school stationery. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note there, Kudpung. I really didn't want to block again, and I was on the verge of blocking indefinitely; I really don't want to do that. Perhaps they'll listen to you, and maybe even communicate with you. Thanks again, and happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.
You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.
Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.
If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.
Please do these steps as soon as possible
First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.
Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:
Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).
After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)
As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.
Communication and keeping up to date
In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:
The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadorsconnect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.
Ambassador training and resources
We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)
Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.
The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.
Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!
Hello, My Name is Johnathan M. I would really love to become an admin because I am great at copyright and editing. I was actually an editor until earlier this year. Please leave any comments on my talk page. Thanks. martjoh (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sheer ignorance of how to build Wikipedia? I know quite well how to build a reliable Wikipedia. But complaining and doing nothing is not solving the problem. The Bannertalk14:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you do know, because defending Mitchelin Star restaurants and wanting to delete schools still seems to be your singular mission another year down the line - a lot of big wind, and people are just putting their hands over their ears. If you want things changed, instead of complaining ad nauseam, do something about it by all means, but do it through the right channels - using AfD to make a point is not the right way to go about it and just wastes everyones' time. You've been told all this before, and more, when you finally gave up your campaign at WT:WPSCH and AfD rampage a year ago. If you were to discuss things in a more friendly manner, your ideas may get more resonance, but I really can't see it happening any time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your manner has a tendency to be aggressive and combative and unless you learn to collaborate in a more friendly way and use the right channels for getting things changed, the only thing that is likely to be crushed is yourself. Why can't you simply discuss things more nicely? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite untrue and you are perfectly aware of it. Your 'friendly collaboration' leaves a lot to be desired for an English language web site. Now I suggest we leave it there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editor at RFPP has asked for unprotection of East Germany
Hello Kudpung. Please see this request. I understand you don't object if an uninvolved admin reviews the matter. How would you feel about a trial unprotection? That is, the page is unprotected and admins watch it for the first fourteen days. If an edit war starts up again, then we restore your full protection through April 13. Doing this experiment could provide useful data. If you agree, I'll do the unprotection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections if you are prepared to check your watch list every day as I do for this article, hovewer, I'm going to be on a remote island for the next few days and may not have regular Internet access. Until the article is full protected again there will be disruption again as soon as it is known the protection has been lifted, and it will mean having to topic ban at least one editor who not only disrupted the article but disrupted the discussions about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I skimmed some of the archives at Talk:East Germany. At present I accept your view that continued protection is best. The failure to agree about the 'satellite' term for such a long time is not a good omen. Something you might consider for the future is a WP:1RR restriction under WP:ARBEE. It is funny that nobody has made any edit requests since protection was imposed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not all that strange really - at least one editor didn't appear to have a strongly vested interest in the article but seemed to be there just to exercise his well known battleground mentality. I'll look into WP:ARBEE - seems to be something I've never heard of, but even we admins don't know everything ;) Thanks Ed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history and talk page 1RR under WP:ARBEEdiscretionary sanctions looks like it could be a good way around the problem, however I'd still suggest semi-protection. Remembering that you can also place other restrictions as we go, if there are issues which still come up when the article is under a 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RfA clerking
Hi Kudpung. I've been meaning to put together a proposal on RfA clerking and start an RfC on it. I've finally gotten around to drafting a proposal. Would you mind taking a look at it and letting me know if you have any comments? I stole much of your work from WP:RFA2011, so much of it will look familiar. I believe that this idea should get an RFC, if only to gauge how much support there is for it. The ideas that were proposed in WP:RFA2011/CLERKS were good, but they never got a chance on an RFC. I'd like to correct that.
If there are any interested talk page stalkers, feel free to comment on it as well, although I'm not looking to start a lengthy debate on the subject. I would just like to get rid of any parts of the proposal that might cause widespread opposition to the RFC, add parts that might cause greater support, or otherwise format the proposal in a way that is easier to understand and/or expresses my ideas clearly.
(talk page stalker)An -> a. Can I suggest that, where you say that "in some cases, the clerk may opt to ask the user to refactor their question instead of removing it" (and in regards to comments), that you add that the Clerk can {{collapse}} such comments until they are refactored to his/her satisfaction? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]08:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry too much about it Dan, what's more important is that an RfC - any RfC - gets started; there will be plenty of the usual side-tracking and alternative suggestions that turn most RfCs into a fiasco without consensus. The only reason this RfC never got launched in the first place is because I was not prepared to put up with the continued personal attacks I was getting around the time I was drafting it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kudpung, and thanks Danjel for the comments. My intention was to give clerks broad discretion when dealing with uncivil comments and personal attacks. Deleting the comments and asking their author to refactor them are 2 options among many. I'll think about how I might reword it to better reflect that. ‑Scottywong| talk _15:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, regarding your comment there ... no disrespect was intended, sorry. More people, and different people, are looking at RfC pages than at WT:RfA, and I didn't think it was a good idea to start another RfC just to see if there was interest in another RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment today at WT:RFA: the format I'm suggesting for the new RfC suggests a somewhat radical idea: that to solve the problem of RfA reform, it's not necessary to do any of the things people have said it was necessary to do, it's only necessary to fix the obvious problems in our standard RfC format, at least for issues where different voters have widely different views of what the problem is. You believe that we largely got consensus when talking among ourselves during discussions in 2011 (I do too). Others believe that the problems external to RfA need to be tackled first. Others believe that the RfC system itself is basically sound ... therefore, since we weren't able to get consensus in 2011 in RfCs, that must mean that, as unfortunate as that is, we have to accept as the "true" Wikipedian answer that Wikipedians didn't actually want any changes. As long as most of the voters think that your solution is sound, as far as it goes, but that your view of the "main problem to be solved" differs from theirs, most voters will continue to oppose. The only way around this is stop relying on voters to tell us what the problem is, and the way to do that is to let everyone have their own page where they can get with others who share their view of the problem and argue over solutions ... and hopefully, they'll have some confidence that even if they don't get everything they want, their views will be represented in some proportional way in a compromise solution. - Dank (push to talk) 16:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
adding orphan
Hello Kudpong, I just want to ask you something. Am I aloud to add a orphan tag on a article if I see a article that has no link to it or is that patrolling it? I just want to know that if I see a article that has no links to it, then should I put that orphan tag on it? If you need anything, you can leave a message on my talk page. --Starship9000 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment from another interested in your situation) Right now, just build articles in your sandbox and have someone else check to see if they are ready for mainspace before moving it. What you need to do - and this will not be an overnight process - is show us that you've gotten a handle on our policies. There's no shame in using a sandbox to create an article; I usually start my article in my sandbox, and only move them when I am satisfied that they are ready for the mainspace. LadyofShalott16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the talk page of this article to view my comment on your appreciation of the French article. Sorry for being so virulent, but I didn't like your remarks on the supposedly verbose and convoluted style of the model you were lucky enough to use in order to submit a decent article in lieu of its paltry predecessor. It would be appropriate that the authors of the article in English acknowledge their debt by a mention of their main source, as is the norm (I have tried, but have no access to the English model). Moreover, you don't seem to know that the translation was done whilst the French article was still in the making. It was amended and made much terser soon afterwards and is now a featured article. This being said, all the best for the New Year. With all good wishes, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Robert_Ferrieux
If anyone does disruptive editing such as vandalism, spamming, and violates wikipedias biography's of living persons, then am I allowed to warn that user if that user does those things or I am not allowed until I make 1,000 edits? --Starship9000 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kudpung. The article, Temsah, appears that it should not be on wikipedia. Please check and see if I should propose the article for deletion or request speedy deletion once I make 1,000 edits. Please do leave a message on my talk page. Remember to check the article and see if I should propose it for deletion or request speedy deletion and let me know if I should propose it for deletion or request speedy deletion. Good Luck! --Starship9000 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)You still do not meet the requirements spelled out on your talk page for tagging articles. While you do have over 1000 total edits, the requirement was to not tag articles until you have made 1000 edits to articles. According to this tool you currently have 365 edits to articles, you have a long way to go. GBfan15:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not proposed any articles for deletion like what you asked so are you impressed? I also made at least 998 edits so I'm I almost there to 1,000? Should I let you know if I make 1,000 edits? --Starship9000 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I be impressed about you not doing something you told not to do? I will be impressed when you have written a perfect new article that has never been tagged for anything. You have a long way to go, but if you persevere and take your time, you'll get there :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I will go through what you wrote, as I do not understand the logic behind the comments...
Blatantly self-promotional beyond what is expected for users to say about themselves.
I only have a biography, this has to be about me. Every artist within the Wikipedia platform has one. I ask, would you consider the writings on their pages to be “Blatant self-promotion?”
User has made only one edit outside his user page, and that was to ask for autoconfirmed rights in order to add more of his work to his user page.
I asked if I could upload images of my video work in an image gallery. I had no understanding how to do this with my account stating, “Your account has not become confirmed yet.” It says to contact someone, and I tried that. Now I am put in a psychological position where once again I am self-promoting when that is not entirely true. I have to add “my work” as the page is about me as a living professional artist. The logic here is (a little) flawed.
Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, or a Google profile
In no way have I thought of this or wish to use the wikipedia platform as another social media network.
If I have made different pages do remove them as soon as you get a moment to do so. It was not my intention to publish multiple pages. The Wikipedia publishing platform is over complicated for people who are not used to the environment.
I have only in the past few hours made the page. Within that time frame is would be difficult for the most dedicated user to have all his citations finished, his gallery publications etc.
If I am in the wrong concerning these issues you have raised, then remove the page, and I will shutdown the account.
I want to say thank you for your time this morning and patience. I fully understand you have rule and guidelines which you have to follow and keep too. Whatever you do concerning this page is out of my hands. But please be assured, this is not about self-promotion.
w.
I fully appreciate that you may not have been aware of the limited extent to which we can say what we would like about ourselves, and this includes both mainspace articles and user pages. Within that time frame is would be difficult for the most dedicated user to have all his citations finished, his gallery publications etc - the point being that your user page not only emulates a Wikipedia article, which is disallowed, but whether intended or not, it is promotional. The fault therein lies in the way that Wikipedia fails to inform new users. It seems odd to me that the first 40 edits a new user makes is to a detailed autobio when there is not one single edit to the encyclopedia to be proud of. I certainly would not be interested in looking you up if you had not done anything yet. The deletion notice is purely procedural and the community will vote on what to do with you user page. Just take my own user page for example: it tells people clearly a bit of my background and how I can add content to the encyclopedia with some authority, and what my motivations are for being an editor and an admin. It does not list my many publications, music, or theatrical works, and it was written long after I became an established user and when people here might want to know who is in fact behind the name 'Kudpung'. Whatever the outcome, I'm sure that you have lots to offer this encyclopedia and I sincerely hope you'll stay with us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think we've ever talked to each other, but I just wanted to say, thank you very much for your work at Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. What you are doing helps to protect Wikipedia. In my opinion, it's very bad for Wikipedia when crappy stubs with errors and no references are not patrolled, and I think autopatrolled should never be given to people who see it as a "right" or a "trophee" for themselves, or who refuse to take any responsibility for the stubs they created and would rather go off and create many more that are just as bad, instead of going and fixing the ones they've already created. Especially when this is pointed out to them. I just wanted to say thanks. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one comes conveniently following the theme of the post above. Just wanted to say thanks for your recent feedback regarding the articles I've created. It was all completely true, and the real facepalm moment for me was just now realizing the naked URL thing... Well, we should learn by mistakes.
I've fixed the URL issue now (I hope), but I would also like to hear if you have more suggestions on how to improve the articles. Of course, I will be expanding most of them over the time, little by little. Widr (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TParis
I have noticed that you're listed as an admin that can recall TParis )User:TParis/Recall), so I have to ask, are you friendly with this guy? Could you do me a favour and take a look at his stunning contributions to ongoing issues between Epeefleche and I, and perhaps... I don't know, send us back to our corners?
Apart from having supported his RfA I actually have very little direct interaction with TP although I've generally been impressed with his neutrality and calm commenting. I'll follow the links but I can't promise anything yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm told that he's generally a good admin, so I'm hoping that this is out of character. I'm not suggesting recall at this point (unless you separately feel that it's necessary), just advice. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]17:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the links you provided above but I haven't gone back as far as the ANI. I've encountereed many instances where our policies/guidelines appear to contradict each other, especially BURDEN and PRESERVE and as you know, I'm pretty quick myself to remove contentious unsourced claims on school articles without bothering to check for sources. I'm also well aware of Epeefleche's 160 school AfDs last year which I personally considered to be disruptive to the point of WP:POINT. I also know exactly how very engaged you are for the quality of school articles so I won't categorise on how you both perceive the 'rules' differently. I also observe, without directly being involved in cases he handles, TP's generally calm and usually accurate summing up of situations, so I believe any mention of possible recall to be an overreaction on your part. I would suggest that all three of you just STFU and get back to work and that you and EF just informally agree to an interaction ban, whatever is on your watchlists - just leave off any articles that either of you risk entering in conflict over; it won't break the Wiki if you both just don't bother to take the bait. That's all I can say really, I hope it helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't see this before... I have previously suggested a voluntary interaction ban, but IIRC the idea was generally railed against. I'm not willing to enter into a one-sided interaction ban (like the onesided bullshit that TParis has proposed), particularly while the articles on my watchlist are still being affected, because that would gradually whittle down the articles at which I can actually edit. Effectively a self imposed de facto ban with a gradual onset. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]03:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made another comment at the ANI. There is no such thing as a one-sided interaction ban. Inter-action concerns two or more people, and that's what we have here, albeit for different reasons. EP has a history of disruptive editing and also not being particularly pleasant, and you are apt to loose your rag occasionally - I remember a few instances when you and another editor were hammer and tooth a couple of years ago. Just try to keep your Oz rules on the football field ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't stand Aussie Rules. I'm a Rugby League guy. AFL is a bunch of bloody pansies wearing tight shorts running around a cricket field having a bit of a kick and then jumping all over each other. Any game where you can't do anything to a guy just because he managed to catch a ball on the full does not deserve to be called "football". Plus, if girls like it more than guys, and it's still considered a guy's sport, then something is drastically wrong. Ah, you see? Now you've got me started! Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]04:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung - Disruptive? The ANI thread that Danjel opened, and the subsequent RFC/U, have failed to demonstrate any policy violations by Epeefleche. What behavior has been disruptive? I'd love to hear how this crusade by Danjel has been less disruptive than Epeefleche's removal of content. Danjel - Spend a minute considering why a completely neutral and uninvolved admin (me) would eventually pick a side. Have you thought of that? I didn't just fart one day and decide I like Epeefleche better.--v/r - TP13:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should've thought of that before you opening an RFC/U against consensus. You've started battlegrounds in several places. Of course, I doubt you feel any responsibility. Much easier to blame others. Kudpung, I'd really appreciate if you'd take a look into Danjel's behavior as you've looked into mine.--v/r - TP14:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With Epeefleche and Danjel, it's six to one and half a dozen to the other. Eepefleche has an old history of disruption to make a point over schools, and Danjel is apt to loose his temper with people sometimes. I've never for a moment thought or even suggested that you may be taking sides. What's up TP? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pissed off is all, I get upset over folks who refuse to be critical of themselves. I'm going to go study, have a good day.--v/r - TP15:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kings Norton Grammar School for Boys
Hello,
I tried to leave an addition to the Old Boys section of the school entry. My name is Alastair F Jones, and I attended the school from 1954-60. In my class for the first few years was Terry Bond, who went on to become drummer in the 1960's band The Rockin' Berries. I thought it would make a nice addition to the page, but you have removed it. I have nothing to 'cite' except that I was at the school with Terry in the 1950s. If you look at The Rockin' Berries entry in Wikipaedia, you will find Terry's name mentioned.
Alastair Jones
Hi Alistair. I fully realise that you thought you were adding some useful info, but there is a note in the page not to add unsourced content. We have to be very strict about mentioning people who as individuals do not meet our guidelines for notability, and Terry's name just being mentioned as a band member doesn't do that. If you would like more background to the guidelines/policies, click on these links: WP:BLP, WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:NOTABILITY, and then armed with that knowledge, do go ahead and expand and improve more articles for us. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if I am.
If the page breaks rules and guidelines then the page has to be removed. I am good with that, rules are rules. Thank you Kudpung for taking the time reply. I understand your job is a difficult one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Esdale (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. We are mainly at fault for not making it clear to new users exactly what they can and can't do. That said, I'm sure you have lots to offer this encyclopedia and I hope you'll stick around to expand, improve, and write other articles. Don't hesitate to ask me if you need any help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been making some progress on Snuggle development recently and I could use your feedback. Specifically, I've created a work log that I plan to update every time I get a chance to work on Snuggle. My intention is that you'll be able to watch that page to track my progress so I can get your feedback on features when they are early in development. The most recent entry (also the only entry) discusses new functionality for interacting with newcomers via Snuggle. I posted some mockups in the work log that show how I imagine the new features to work and I could use some feedback before I start writing the code. Thanks! --EpochFail(talk • work)20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The link is not to an article on the French Wiki, but to a website. I don't mind considering translating an article from another Wiki but this looks as if I'm being asked to create an article about an aircraft discussed on a French business news site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... That goes beyond the scope of what I do for Wikipedia for free ;) Best if he does a Google translation. It should be enough for him to get the gist of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My French is a little rusty, but I'd be happy to lend a hand here. Is there anything in particular from the UN article, or Google's machine-translation, that you feel might be incomplete / misleading? Are you planning to use other francophone sources? I'd happily take this to the article's talkpage if you don't want to bore Kudpung any longer. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm a native speaker of both languages, I've checked out the entire Google translation of the Usine Nouvelle article. French being a major world article, and the intuitive way Google TRanslate gets a lot of things right with languages that basically have a similar grammar structure to English (as opposed to German for example), the Google rendering is not too inaccurate. I can't post it here because it would still be a derivative copyvio of the French, but the other problem is knowing exactly which parts from your many edits you have referred to the article and this would take time that I currently do not have. Perhaps if you let me know which bits you are unsure of, I will be able to do something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}