Hello, Kudpung. Please let me know what I need to do to keep you from sending me comments concerning the page I am creating. This living person, who happens to be my mother, is a well-known author in my area and within organizations that I am a part of. Information I am providing on her comes either from two books she wrote, self-financed, and owns rights to or from a personal interview I held with her. I made references to all three on my page. What other types of references do you imagine that I may need? If you delete my page then I am not exactly certain what the purpose of this Wikipedia service is if a layman can't contribute legitimate and accurate information. Please let me know what I am missing here.
Keep your facetious comments to yourself and see the warnings I will shortly be posting to your talk page. Please also see how to use talk pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could drive me nuts sometimes, but you were always arguing on arguments, not emotions. So I valued your edits and sometimes pointed me at another viewpoint. I hope to clash again soon, for the better of Wikipedia. Night of the Big Windtalk09:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly says in the possibly unfree files discussion that this has nothing to do with identifying the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my name is Pedro Rodriguez. I am a student at Michigan State University, working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process under Jonathan Obar. You had previously showed interest in being a interviewee for our study. I can conduct the interview via Skype or email, whichever you prefer. I can be contacted at my email: rodri397@msu.edu to set up a time to Skype or , if you wish, to obtain your email to conduct the interview that way. Thank you for your participation in our study. SirGuybrush (talk)
I have'nt been on Wikipedia for a long time. Just coming back to bring new infos. I hope you are well...:)
I read your message and I really appreciate your help. Another thing, I don't know how to remove the message stripe on the top of the article... so would you please remove it for me? If you want to bring some corrections to my English and style, you are totally welcome.
hi edits were made tpo create a subsection for sport as the main section sport wasin was lost, so it makes it easier to find from menu at top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylon77 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am an ambassador. With all due respect, as an admin you are probably aware that we do not create live pages for experimental purposes - especially when they simply duplicate existing content. Because your current practice does not encourage good editing habits with new users, please consider using a sandbox for the instruction of your class and move the article to mainspace when it is ready, Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New content has now been added. We typically nest article (with an overview article and than sub article providing further detail). This class is struggling with respect to how to edit. This is not my class (I do not teach using Wikipedia). It is one that could definitely use an ambassador. May be you could volunteer. I agree that this class and maybe all classes should be editing in a sandbox rather than having them play within featured article. I consider this however a compromise with those who disagree with the above mentioned position. Please give more than 15 minutes for something to develop. I have edited here long enough to know Wikipedia's fifth pillar and wish to apply it here for a week. If the content the students generate is poor I will nominate this article for deletion and if consensus exists will delete it myself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an ambassador and an admin, I do not agree with some of the principles and work of the GEP and the Foundation's negative approach to the new-page patrol system which I have tried for a long time to improve. I therefore prefer not to get further involved. If you have a moment, do feel free to explain some of our editing principles to this class. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I try my best to explain and guide students who edit within my area of interest. It however is often slow, frustrating and sometimes time consuming. Happy editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one at fault here i have commited no offence and am meerly making a new way to make a paige you are over reacting commiting vandalism and abusing your power once again remove your block or i will report you and have you blockedIrishfrisian (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because my comments were critical of you dose not make them innappropriate i used no insaults and am trying tokeep it civil it's a talk page i am allowed to express my opinion on them if you can' handle criticism on your talk page then don't criticise other people on their talk pageIrishfrisian (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, I thought you might like to know about this comment in a recent Rootsweb email (not mine and not to me): "Unfortunately the Wikipedia entry for "Wyche" somewhat confuses the issue in
that it states that the Wyche Cutting "defines" the border between HEF and
WOR. It doesn't... What it does do is cross the border at an approximate
right angle! ". Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question about Sourcing on Neville Farmer submission
Sawadee Kudpung - you left comments on a submission I made earlier today concerning Neville Farmer. I have some questions but am not sure if those go here, or on my Talk page. Would you be so kind as to see my questions there? Thanks.
Regards,
Munkyboy80 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
La Sera was featured in several NY Times articles, as well as in other articles in notable papers. She has toured nationally and internationally, both by herself and as an opener for bands such as Tennis (band), Dum Dum Girls, and Screaming Females. She is signed to a record company Hardly Art. I find your deletion far too premature. Please allow me to recreate the article and give me some time to make it up to Wikipedia's standards, which can certainly be met.Thriley (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anything you would like me to try to further clarify, I would be happy to. (And as an aside, I don't recall if you've been around in the discussions where I've explained why I created those questions in the first place, but if you would like a recap, I would be happy to do that as well.)
In the meantime, I need to find the various RfA RfCs they did to finish answering one of your questions. (And as I recall, Durin (among others) used to make some very nice charts.)
Anyway, all that aside, I sincerely appreciate your comments. they were obviously well-researched, and sincere. Thank you. - jc3704:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do need a few more 'crats and I'm actually sure you'll go about it admirably. - when I get back into full-time editing I'll probably run myself ;) There were no cryptics in my questions, I was simply interested in whether you were aware of the enourmous work we had done throughout 2011 on research into what is wrong and corrupt with the RfA system, and to offer some proposals for reform. The huge project was finally scuppered by the trolling of the same regular contributors to the RfA process who create most of the drama. My own RfA was a classic example of how lies and deceit (some of it unfortunately by other admins) can destroy a good user's reputation. Fortunately, I passed with flying colours. Many of the opposes came from having been a very busy editor, and just doing the right thing, so there is as much danger in applying for the bit late in one's Wiki carreer, as trying for it too soon, and that's one of the reasons why the seasoned editors of the right calibre are refusing to run. RfA voting seems to have calmed down of late following some major Arbcom cases and blocks of disruptive participants, but the damage is done. Other users and admins won't generally step in to keep order, as you have seen so often yourself, and probably the 'crats are the only level of authority that could/can do something about it. However, a recent 'crat discussion dried up with a general consensus that it's not their mandate - problem is, there are too few active 'crats to make a representative quorum in such discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that though, there have been a TON of discussions at WT:RFA.
A lot of what you're talking about is why I created my standard questions. At the time, there was a trend to create rather ridiculous questions, or pit trap/trick questions, or personal grudge/pet peeve questions. It got so bad that I thought I would see if I could create a set of questions which followed the suggested advice concerning questions at the time: That the questions deal solely, directly (and more importantly neutrally) with the tools and responsibilities of adminship.
I'd like to think I succeeded in that attempt. Though I understand that there have been others who feel that answering at least some of them is merely a exercise in rote response. In my experience, that's not always been the case. And I have found that the way that an individual responds can be just as informative as the answers themselves.
Anyway, I'm sorry I missed out on the 2011 efforts. It looks like a lot of work went into that.
If in the future there are any discussions you think I might be interested in, please feel free to drop me a note. I appreciate such friendly notices. - jc3705:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a ton of discussion at WT:RfA. Unfortunately it's completely peren and unfocussed, and more akin to a discussion in the local pub about last night's Coronation Street episode. That's exactly why WP:RFA2011 was created. It did more research, analysis, and structured discussion on RfA matters in 8 months than had been done in the previous 8 years. What people misunderstood was that contrary to their belief (or hope) that the project was designed to make it easier for everyone to get the bit, the goal was not to make it easier, but to transform RfA into a venue that would attract not only the serious, experienced editors to run for office, but also encourage more serious and clueful voters to take part. The project had the personal support of Wale,s and the WMF. One of the suggestions for reform, among the many, for example, was that a panel of 'crats should grant the bit to adminship contenders who would be proposed and seconded by at least two admins, instead of the anarchy of voting on the present system. There are plenty of draft proposals lying dormant in that project, but due to disruption from trolls, none of them actually made it to RfC. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WT:RFA wasn't always like that. Once upon a time there was a lot of fairly intensive discussion there. However, then as now, little ever got out of discussion to be implemented.
If there is a discussion you'd like to see an RfC on, propose it. There are few topics that are so awful that they cannot be discussed : ) - jc3706:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The work was supposed to be a team effort in order to hone the proposal statements to perfection before launching the RfCs. Membersof the team were being insulted, attacked, and slandered by trolls around the site behind their backs for their work on RfA reform and weren't prepared to post an RfC as an individual. The trolls had their way, Arbcom decided that if trolls do good content work, they can be excused for being abusive and disruptive, and the 40-strong task force went home. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Pershore High.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Pershore High.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
HI, I'm trying to edit an article in my sandbox because it's a somewhat major revision and I want to allow other editors to comment before making it live. You just deleted it from my user space. YOU ARE NOT HELPING. If you would like to discuss, I would be happy to, but You have caused me to lose several hours of work and I am EXTREMELY unhappy with you. I will try to be civil, but what you did is simply unacceptable and copntrary to the spirit of cooperation that I find (almost) everywhere else on wiki. Please leave my user space alone. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You recently deleted my article on the composite decking company TimberTech. I was just wondering what I need to do to make it a viable wikipedia article. Thanks Deckinginformer (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks really appreciate your swopping in and acting in the best interests of the community re: Telehop deletion - will try again abiding by Wikipedia's rules Will pbs (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need some eyes
Hi Kudpung. If you're around, I could use some administrative eyes on Adeena Karasick. There are two obviously COI editors (or maybe only one, if you get my drift), who insist upon adding puffery, OR, copyvio, unreliable sources, you name it, to the article. See for example, the history and the talk pages of this user and this one. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the article, left messages on the article talk page and the talk pages of the creator and the major contributing IP, and removed the unfree photo and listed it for deletion. I now have it all on my watchlist but do give me a nudge if I miss anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kudpung! Hopefully the message will eventually sink in. Actually, Karasick is a fairly notable Canadian poet. I plan to expand the article with proper references in the next couple of days and remove the remaining puffery. It's funny... the kind of nonsense and obvious puffery the editor(s) kept adding only served to make her look ridiculous, although perhaps that's all part of her ...er... "pre-Flarff, neo-Fluxus performatics." :) By the way, how come you don't have a ToC on your talk page? Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Using Twinkle to nominate a template for deletion is a minute operation--just viewing a long article like Abraham Lincoln will cause more strain. If you feel like informing of this is a waste of time, why did you do it? I just don't get your post at all. What do you want from me? What do you want to be different? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned about the extra work your Twinkle operations ultimately cause for others who may have to take part in why might be generally unnecessary discussions and eventual admin work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Work No one is obliged to participate in TfD. If it goes a week without any feedback, then they will be deleted. The actual process of deletion is not terribly difficult, either, so I'm still not sure what your beef is: is it about server strain or the fact that admins are responsible for deleting things? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely the problem - too few active admins and most of them are concerned with the more necessary issues of really needed page deletions (and/or keeps). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RfA The solution is to promote someone at RfA--I'm sure that there are several admins-to-be who can help. Your responses are frustrating and borderline useless because you can't seem to answer the straight-forward questions I posed: what do you want me to do differently? If there are templates which should be deleted, then that's not my fault. Finding them is the first step in having them deleted, so it creates less work for me to do that. Statements like "you might wish to take more notice of what goes on at Wikipedia and follow some of the recent cases where Arbcom chooses to condone some of the most blatant personal attacks and vile language" come across as vague threats: tell me something explicit that you mean here or else I have no idea what you want but I get the impression that you're using the specter of your administrator privileges and ArbCom intervention to scare me into not editing. Or something. What are you talking about? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for !voting
at my successful RFA
Thank you, Kudpung, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply
Thanks for your input. I was negligent in the case of the three schools in New Brunswick. At the school district's article, the one school I asked to withdraw was listed in with the middle schools. However, I stand behind the other two that I made at that time. Am I incorrect in my reading that middle schools are not notable on their face? Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus arrived at through dozens of perennial discussions (started anew every time a newcomer starts nominating schools for deletion), is that while not 'inherently' notable, secondary and high schools that provide education up to the level of a national school leaving certificate, will be kept if they are at least proven to exist. Primary (elementary) schools and middle schools on the other hand, must meet our criteria for notability, that is, they must have something really special about them. that can be sourced. That said, they still escape deletion if they are not notable: the normal accepted procedure for non-notable schools is to blank and redirect them to an entry on their school district article (USA schools) or to the education section of the article about their location. If an entry isn't there already, it should be made. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I get it now. I understand you to say that I can go ahead and do the redirect on the other two middle schools, leaving the Academy as it is. If that is not correct, please let me know on my talk page. If I don't hear from you, I shall proceed as above. Sorry to be such a pain in the butt. It was never my intention to nominate a high school; instead that was just a case of my lack of due diligence, if you will. It won't happen again. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually less complicated than it sounds: We keep secondary/high schools if they exist and are not blatant adverts for private schools. Primary and middle schools can generally be summarily blanked and redirected unless they have some extraordinary reason to be notable. So nothing needs to be deleted or nominated fore deletion. If the creator of a redirected school complains, the redirect can easily be undone, without any need for admin tools, until the matter is settled - which might at that stage mean going to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for undeletion
The page I made, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARLT_Foundation was deleted under Section A7 under the Criteria for Speedy Deletion (No indication of importance), however this section states, "with the exception of educational institutions", and ARLT Foundation is a non profit educational institution, so I believe the page was wrongly deleted. Thank you Cathp147 (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state it is an unreferenced advert and does not demonstrate importance or reason why it should be included in the encyclopedia. Educational schools are not inherently notable. I can restore it to your user space where you can work on it until it has correctly referenced and has been reviewed by an admin for reinsertion to main space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see, could you return it to my user space please? I will work on it. what sort of references would be required? Are you looking for founder names, or headquarters addresses? would these things help? Thank you Cathp147 (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thank you very much. I will do my very best to fix the article to adhere to the guidelines, and hopefully we can get it included. Thanks! Cathp147 (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kudpung. You deleted the article for See Me Not just now. I understand you did it because you thought the article was "Unremarkable musical recording where artist's article doesn't exist." Right? But the artist's article Saroos already exists now. So I want you to put it back. Thank you. 122.29.121.121 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the the references provided for the Saroos article do not contribute to the required criteria for music groups at WP:BAND and is also slated for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the "History" section of Saroos, it is written that the band has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour. So the artist's article satisfies the notability guidelines. 122.29.121.121 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Written, but not supported by independent articles in the established music press. Unfortunately the references provided are simply release and/or pre-release notices and basic reviews. These alone do not establish any reason why this band is particularly notable. Please note that if you have a Wikipedia account you must remember to log in to avoid your IP address being blocked from editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
If the Saroos article is kept at AfD you can ask any admin to restore your See Me Not article - politely of course, or just recreate it after ensuring that all claims in it are correctly referenced. And FWIW, a page like that is created in 5 minutes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth reviewing some of the discussions about that at his talkpage first. TAP is currently barred from requesting any form of rights, however in theory he's not barred from accepting any. (Latest discussion was here I think, the discussions are a bit all over the place). Might be a good idea to check with User:MBisanz, who some while ago unblocked TAP with the requirement that he not request rights. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You recently gave a me a vandalism notice stating I would be blocked if I continued, yet provided no evidence of vandalism. Was this an error? Nicokroeker (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, and it was not an error. The evidence is in your editing history, the history of the vandalised pages, and the messages and warnings on your talk page. I'm sure you won't mind either if I have check run on other 'users' who may have connected to Wikipedia from your computer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check your editing history and that of any other accounts you may have been using. Please remember that if you continue to disrupt this encyclopedia or create inappropriate pages you may be possibly be risking a block of your IP address. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the criteria then. Professor Goodson is a real person who attanded the college and is an Alumni. I also attended the college and am also an Alumni. I can give links to commercial website www.alistairharley.com/so obviously I am not doing this. I could put a link to friends reunited website or Linkedin........is that ok?
Alistair Harley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistairharley (talk • contribs) 09:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Geoffrey Goodson...........I cant see anything on the link you gave that says the source I linked him to was not allowed. The link was to verfify he was a real person, not that he done some verifyable research. How does one get onto wikipedia as an alumni? Geoffrey Goodson and I were both attending Winchmore School and Southgate College at the same time. What do you want.....a copy of the teachers register saying we went there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistairharley (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself or your hobby. Please stop disrupting the encyclopedia now or you may risk being blocked from editing it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get It While It's Hot
Hi. I noticed that you redirected the page to Nodesha — first of all, you should give a rationale for that in the edit summary, and secondly, I am working on the article by expanding it. Interrupting (such as tagging for speedy deletion, like another user did, and redirecting) aren't very helpful and seem kind of disruptive. So can I work on the article first, and if you still feel that it's not worthy of inclusion, you can AfD it. Thanks. Till I Go Hometalkstalk13:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely why I redirected it - if I had been doing my job properly I would have deleted it. Pages should be worthy of inclusion before they are posted to mainspace. Perhaps you could consider working on a copy of it in your user space until it's ready, and then you can rv the redirect. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me why "mitlaufer" ought to be deleted "according to WP deletion policies." There already is an article on its translation "fellow-traveller" and another editor has tried to create a non-existent link (because there is no article for "mitlaufer"). The word has an important historical use in English. Given in particular that it is already in use in other WP articles (e.g., Heidegger and Riefenstahl), why would you simply propose the article for deletion and not at least explain yourself? Indeed, yes, just fantastic, arbitrarily propose an article for deletion. Do you at least have a recommendation on linking a definition of "mitlaufer" in articles that use it? Mfhiller (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]
I have not deleted the article. In my opinion it s a dictionary entry, but in keeping with policy I have offered it to the community who will decide through due process. You are welcome to add your explanations to that debate. FWIW I am also bilingual and am aware that the word is also used in a much broader sense in everyday parlance. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Socially Useful Productive Work page deletion notice
Hello
I got a message that the said page will be deleted. While I agree that my contribution to the page is minimal, I must add that SUPW is a very important part of India's school curriculum. While most schools have done away with it, all schools affiliated to the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations have it as a compulsary subject till last year of school. The idea behind starting a page dedicated to it was to make a start. I am sure other contributors will be willing to help out and expand the page. I am, myself, right now not in a position to add anything beyond what I did.
Unfortunately the page doesn't stand much chance of survival if it's importance for the Wikipedia as an encyclopedic article cannot be established. We need to note that an encyclopedia does not have articles about every subject that is in the national curriculum of every country - whether they are being taught right now or have been abandoned. Maybe there would be more use for an article of this kind in one of the Indic Wikis. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
Hey! Thanks for deleting the 'D.J. Kennedy' topic so fast. I was just about to mark it for deletion, but you got it before I did. :-) At32296 (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Big Air School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to ask why you have deleted the reference to Thomas Ridgewell.
Thomas is a bona fide filmmaker and co-creator of Edds World, a popular Youtube channel. Given the nature of Wikipedia it seems perverse to remove his listing, when the very sphere that he works in is the internet.
Thomas graduated from University of Lincoln in 2010 with a Degree in Media Production. During his time at University he was very active in film making and towards the end was the 200th most subscribed YouTube user.
Since then he has appeared as a guest on several News and Factual programmes discussing the wider implications of the internet, and is also responsible for inspiring a younger generation of content creators.
It just seemed very odd to remove his entry., as he is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I do not understand the logic in removing the page. Could I ask that the page be re-instated so that perhaps people can improve the content and include more citations.
The deletion of the article was a recent community decision at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ridgewell. The large number of deletions by other admins confirms (see: Article Deletion Log) and maintains this decision. In deleting yet another recreation, I am in turn also upholding that community decision. The page can eventually be Userfied for development by a registered user if another administrator agrees, but it will not be able to be posted to mainspsace until it has been reviewed for notability according to policy and meets the criteria.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it is not any better. It's slightly less promotional but In fact after having checked all the references, I felt it had to be proposed for deletion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edmund Roberts (diplomat)
Edmund Roberts (diplomat) started off in Wiki's new workspace format, where it was immediately thumb-downed. I copied it to my sandbox before appealing. Another admin merged the two and moved it to article space. Unfortunately, I've done a lousy job with it since then, and have received no help at all, though I did get a thank-you on my talk page. I'm limited by the way my mind works. I've not even finished reading his book, which I got from Googlebooks as such a horrible mish-mash that my brain makes me re-format in Word to read it. Doing that, however, makes me hare off to many other articles to post Roberts' comments; for one of many, History of Bangkok#Rattanakosin. Roberts also says natives usually refer to the new capital simply as "Krung" (capital,) and my wife says so did she, as a child. On another page other that the reference given, he gives the origin for what he spells "Bang-kok," as coming from orchards (kok)nalong both banks of the river that supplied fruit to the old capital. He doesn't say "Bang" means "haven," or "bank" where a canoe can be moored, but I stumbled across that in a history of the founding of Mukdahan that I have lost. Since you are a hard task master, maybe you can help me be more focused, and whip this appalling article into better shape. If you're so inclined, please put remarks on Roberts's talk page, to include remarks on what you've changed. You might also check "What links here" for what I put in other articles. --Pawyilee (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a very quick look at it and corrected a couple of typos. On the whole I think there may be too much background that is not strictly related to the biography of the subject. Do bear this in mind when adding new content so as not to make too much work for yourself. Otherwise it seems to coming along nicely. I'll take another look when you've filled some of the empty sections. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dimitri Gutas
Very disappointed to see you add that PROD so quickly after I created the article. Did you do a search? He gets quoted in the New York Times, etc, see [1] for a book mentioning his expertise, and how about [2]Islamic philosophy, science, culture, and religion; studies in honor of Dimitri Gutas. Would that have been published if he wasn't an expert? Maybe you could add that for me? I'm surprised at this reaction of yours, if anyone else had done it I might have made a formal complaint. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I'm all in favour of academics having Wikipedia pages: Quote from my user page: Why does every sports person who has played one professional game, every street musician, every bit part actor, every kid who went on X Factor and Got Talent, and every small town hack and painter merit an article on the flimsiest of sources, while life-long academics have to jump through a whole page of hoops? If I'd checked who was the author (which for some reason I didn't this time) I would have left it alone. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you wrote to me, that this article "Today's featured article/June 13, 2012" would be deleted, but i did not create it, why are you informing me?
thanks,
mike
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of HLD Club, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not unambiguously promotional - also suggests that it may be notable. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, the dot point I removed was an exact duplicate of a preceding dot point. You can see that from this version from before my edit – points 2 and 5 under "Deliberately misleading" are identical. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)01:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Central Group COI
Hi. I've looked at each of the articles you recently tagged for COI, and didn't find improper advertising or NPOV in any of them, so I've removed the tags for now. I agree, though, that the articles could benefit from expansion based on secondary sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Paul, but not by the current contributor who IMHO has a massive COI and ostensibly edits simply to promote business in which s/he has a vested interest as a shareholder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have reasons for suspicion, but I think you're coming across as pretty harsh and accusatory in your comments. Personally I don't think having in one's portfolio possibly something like 0.01% of shares in a publicly listed company is a solid indication of "massive COI". If we're going to have zero tolerance then any average person who has contributed earnings to a pension fund will have to be barred from editing the majority of business articles. Perhaps a little more good faith could be assumed here? Regarding images I don't see what could remain of issue since the disputed fair-use images have been deleted. As for the Commons images, what I see is failure to verify the veracity of the original uploader's ownership claims; nothing at all seems to indicate sockpuppetry is likely involved. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comments Paul, but I will admit to having llearned to have a very suspicious mind on Wikipedia - perhaps it's why I've discovered so many socks and COI in the past. It's not a lack of GF, it's just my way of helping to keep the place clean. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edit I made on Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, was a edit to change an unnessesary comment, about someone writing, "I want to be an admin so bad", now i'm paraphrasing but that needed to be taken off.
Hi Kudpung, Remember the mass opera composer navbox TfD? Anyhow, the list of 2 and and 3 opera navboxes was closed as "Keep". I now discover that the nominator had nominated another 15 composer navboxes on the same day (May 30) but forgot to list them in the deletion discussion. Consequently, they are still languishing with TfD templates on them and no linked discussion. All of them are 2 or 3 opera ones and would have been kept had they been listed properly. I'm happy to remove the TfD templates from them with an edit summary referring to the deletion discussion. Just wanted to check if I could do that or if it needs an admin. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not quite sure. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to vote or comment on those TfD with a keep rationale linking to the one that was kept. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is there is no TfD discussion where I can comment. He failed to list them anywhere. See What links here for Template:Viardot operas. All fifteen on the list above are the same. All the articles they're transcluded in now say: "The template below (Viardot operas) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus." I think I'll try contacting Plastikspork, the admin who closed the original TfD. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's something odd going on there, but I haven't a clue what it is. These are XfD areas I very rarely venture into and I've never really understood how they work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hi,
I really don't understand why you keep deleting my new articles. Maybe "like a boss 2" was a bit wrong, and I didn't know that wikipedia already had an article on pi, but the article on Fernman was a perfectly good short biography of an important biologist. Please put the article about Fernman back up, or at least give me a good explanation why it is inapropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thediamonddealer2 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should follow some of the many links in all the messages on your talk page, especially the one in the welcome message about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and then WP:A7 which will tell you why that short, vague, unreferenced article that makes no credible claims of notability will almost certainly not be accepted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Looks like I actually did one of the earlier deletions myself. Page has already been deleted by another admins so I've closed the AfD as a speedy, and protected the page and its derivatives. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lucky to remember what I did yesterday. With all the work you do, I'm surprised you aren't in the same boat as me. Oh, you forgot to send me the ฿10,000 baht I was owed. I'm sure you remember that. Bgwhite (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
with you recently and wandered over to your page to check it out. Something do when I know that i won't have time to do serious editing because my partner is about to say "Let's go. Now." Anyway, I was intrigued by your discussion of New Page Patroller, thought that I might be interested, but when I went to the page it scarred the crap out of me. Is it really as complicated as it looks? (to be cont.) Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really complicated, but it does require a good deal of competency and a reasonably thorough knowledge of policies. Unfortunately, there are no official requirements to be an NPPer so the system is more or less broken by newbies who want to play policemen without having gone to cop college first - and they appear to make up the majority of patrollers, until they get it wrong so often that they are asked to stop. So, yes, the instructions are, I suppose, designed in a way to scare people away from it unless they are prepared to thoroughly read and digest the instructions. That said, anyone with a genuine desire to help out at NPP can be sure of massive support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll wander back to the New Page Patroller stuff and try to digest it. I have a pretty comfortable knowledge of what should and should not be included in wikipedia, though, I must admit to being perhaps too much of an inclusionist and anarchist to always do what needs to be done. Still if I catch one or two needless articles a week that is a couple that someone else does not need to do. Thanks for your prompt, informative reply. Carptrash (talk)
Please see the comments on the deletion notice on your talk page - in particular, do take a moment to follow the links in the welcome message. In short, all Wikipedia articles must make a clear demonstration of notability. The rules for this kind of article are at WP:ORG and WP:RS. Hope this helps. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the response Kudpung, for fixing the page would you be able to fill me in on the specifics as too what actually needs to me more notable because there is plenty of information on the page so we're not too sure what exactly has to be fixed. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcaliotta (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please click the link in the title that I have added above to your post to read the community's decision. We have done our research and unfortunately your company is unlikely to meet our criteria at the present time. Please note also that you may not edit as a group or represent your own company on Wikipedia (see: WP:COI). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:CSD, "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." So why don't you remove the notice? Cvlwr (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It did not 'survive' the deletion discussion, the AfD was closed as 'no consensus' because not enough people voted on it. It should have been relisted. The article is still not exempt from providing sustainable references that assert notability, which it does not. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A7 criterion "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion."
Also, "It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied."
Why is the page CROSS GENE being considered to be deleted! I'm just really annoyed because I spent a lot of time on it -__- I seriously don't see the problem. I want direct point of what is wrong, not some one telling me to read something that I've already read, what I want is a clear point as to what is wrong with this friggin article. Should I just add more articles? Because Cross Gene has been gaining attention from China, Korea, and Japan because of each member being from a different country, if the problem is that it isn't "important." Which is really dumb to me because that's basically an opinion. I wish the admins here would learn about a topic before thinking it isn't important immediately. The only problem I can think of is expanding, and if that is the problem then please don't delete it, I'm working on it at the same time but I am having internet problems in the temporary area I am forced to be. I will be moving tomorrow so I basically can work on this again on Friday. I guess I'm annoyed because earlier a bot deleted it because I was in the middle of editing and I added a ton like this but by the time I saved it was all gone, so sorry if I come off rudely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukiss13elieve (talk • contribs) 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More reasons to prepare articles in the user space we give you before publishing them to mainspace. Like anything else in life, there is no substitute for reading instructions. If your artuicle meets our criteria it will not be deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um...That didn't answer anything to be honest, and you a addressed something that kinda made no sense. I asked what was the problem, and I never got the answer. Also, to the instructions part, like I said, I read all the pages before when I edited another article, boring but helpful, though not always clear. I wasn't asking for a substitute, because there isn't anything to substitute, I just asked for a clear answer, which isn't what I got. The reply I was kinda looking for was: The problem is... lol More like guidance. I don't understand the point of the talk page if you aren't told what is wrong and are always referred to the wiki pages. I've read them before, I'm asking you because I don't understand the problem. Obviously it wont be deleted if it met the criteria, but what is it not meeting? Yeah, I realized that after the deletion, but that doesn't really excuse the flawed bot, which should be fixed. Why must there be such a patronizing tone? Anyways, please just tell me if it isn't meeting the importance matter or what ever, 'cause that can be easily fixed. Ukiss13elieve (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my fault that Wikiopedia has become such a maze of bureaucracy that the instructions have to explained over and over again. I'll look into it for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very short article that does not indicate any importance for a Wikipedia entry. If the band has charted, it might have been worth the mention and it would not only have expanded the article, but relived us of the effort of having to translate the only reference that was provided. Please note that AfD is not a deletion process per se, it is the fairest method to decide if an article should be kept or deleted, but The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Perhaps clearly intoning in the article text that the band has charted, and adding some references will help. As it stands, there is one vote for keep, and one for delete. As the band apparently meets a notability criterion, it unlikely to be deleted. Hope this helps. See: WP:BAND, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! That's what I was looking for lol, oh, and some one deleted all of my references for some reason... and they moved the page to Cross Gene, I don't know why, is there a way to make it go back? I've been trying to change it. The group's proper name is CROSS GENE, not Cross Gene. Thank you! :D They've been charted now, I was waiting for the charts to released and they finally have. Thank you, sorry for being annoying lol. Sometimes it feels like a personal attack, I was hostile, sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukiss13elieve (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to bombard you with links again, but it's really much easier than me simply paraphrasing the instructions again here. Also, by doing it your self, you'll learn the editing rules more rapidly - there's nothing like hand-on experience. See WP:MOVE for instructions on changing a page name, but first read WP:CAPS and then the parent guideline at WP:TITLE. Oh, and please remember to sign your messages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback re: new page patrolling
Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at TeaganK's talk page. Message added June 28. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Justin Rhode will compete 100% sure at the 2012 Olympics, he is a top 10 ranking world class shot putter. I don’t even understand why you want to delete this.
"Welcome to Wikipedia" message on my talking page????? I'm contributing regularely for 6 years at Wikipeida, and this is the first time an administrator like you cause me trouble like this. I dont understand your point, please clarify. This article has no reasons to be deleted at all.
FWIW I'm not the only editor who doubts the notability of this subject, and it may soon be sent to AfD for a community decision. It's a shame you can't check up on the article history before you come here being rude. Please see the header template of this talk page. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If you look at the page's edit history, you'll see that the article was indeed a copyright violation when I tagged it; the page creator, when notified, put the text into his/her own words, noting this on the talk page. Compare the version I tagged with this page, and you'll see that they're practically identical. As an administrator, could you delete the infringing revisions? Thanks. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 'refusing' to restore it, I just don't want anything more to do with it because the decision has been taken out of my hands by the admin who believes the parent article passes our criteria for notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether if you want anything more to do with it or not. You are a administrator. And you once wrote, "you can ask any admin to restore your See Me Not article". Cvlwr (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Curious about your change of heart at Justin Rodhe – do you think the IAAF ref indicates he meets WP:NTRACK? If so, which criterion? If not, then why not leave it prodded? I would go ahead with an AfD, but I don't want to be too hasty in case he actually does meet the guidelines. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does, but I don't know if the IAAF source alone is sufficient and I prefer to err on the side of caution. I still never understood - even as an admin - why sportspeople get WP articles on the flimisiest of sources while chair professors and leading research academics have to jump through a whole load of hoops before they are allowed a mention. WP is fast becoming a sports almanac - if it isn't already. Maybe someone would like to AfD the article and let the community decide.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You PRODded this: I don't know whether you noticed that the article author removed your PROD almost at once. I only noticed because XLinkBot, in reverting a link addition, restored the PROD, which put it back in the list. At a glance, I share your doubts about it, but I cannot be bothered to investigate further - over to you to decide whether to AfD it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
