Oh come now, I wasn't necessarily referring to you. Unless, you're admitting that you are a among "those that try to scare away content editors", in which case you should resign immediately. -- Scorpion042219:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
98% was a pretty all-encompassing statement so I naturally assumed that it was an oblique reference to my work. What you are probably not aware of however, is that I'm in around only 4% who badger, cajole, coax, and 'threaten', and encourage young enthusiastic users into doing things right. After all, they may even be our next generation of admins! For your information though, and to get you up to date, you may wish to read this page - all of it, including the most recent postings. You'll realise that it's not easy when people won't read the instructions and policies first. Although it's sometimes rather exasperating for all concerneactually d, most older and established editors (and admins) are here to help, and ironically, most new editors are scared away by other new editors ;) Put this way, just for a fictional example, and as a pure hypothesis: if you were a 63 year old professor of English and linguistics, a 7-year editor, creator of over 60 perfect, full-sized articles, and wrote an article like this almost single-handedly, and put it in for GA, then you get a 14-year old, non-native speaker pick up the review, who then tells you bluntly it's full of grammatical errors, and gives you 24 hours to address them - how would you react? I'd be interested to know how you would handle a situation like that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to give you credit, you handled my taunting far better than most admins could. Now that I look back, perhaps I was a little harsh with my original wording. I was frustrated, because I've seen situations where a promising new(ish) editor gets too passionate in the defense of his work, gets a 3RR block, loses interest, then disappears.
In response to your off-topic hypothetical situation, something similar has happened to me (okay, I'm not a 63 year old professor, but bear with me), where an article I had up for GA was reviewed by a guy who had one of those babel templates on his userpage, and it said he was EN-2. His review was full of mistakes. I think I handled the situation well (I asked an experienced reviewer to give a second opinion). A bit off topic, but unfortunately, too many users would bite the reviewer (I've encountered one user whose page advertises that he's wikipedia's foremost generator of featured content, and he had no problem insulting or scaring away reviewers) but I've always tried to treat them with respect and avoid bashing them (well, publicly anyway), partially because I used to be heavily involved in the FL process. I guess that's why I took excpetion to what I interpreted as you being very heavy handed to a user who seemed genuinely interested in generating featured content. -- Scorpion042201:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It all boils down to the fact that maintenance areas are a magnet to younger, new, and inexperienced users. There are obvious reasons for this but I won't go into detail now. Another problem is that with its huge population of near-native speakers (but of a very different version of English), the Indian sub-continent also provides a vast number of new, and enthusiastic users who also get involved in these areas and often clambour for user rights. If you do some checking you'd be surprised how many of them are students and even 'trainers' at the CVUA for example, and reviewers at GA and FA. However, this also applies of course to near-native speakers from other regions. I went through sheer hell on my first couple of GAs because that was in the days when the reviews were done by extremely experienced, mature editors, one of whom is now a member of Arbcom. So you can probably understand why I take some exception at what goes on here with the 'pass mine, and I'll pass yours' that really does go on here sometimes (without pointing a finger at anyone in particular). This is probably the reason why I rarely bother now to submit my articles, all of which are of a very high standard, to GA or FA. For the same reason, I don't bother doing any reviews either although I am fully capable of it, so you see how these things hurt the system. Keep up your good work, and as I say to everyone: don't hesitate to come to my talk page if ever you need help or advice; and if you're sure of your stuff, don't hesitate either to share your knowledge with others too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I saw that you removed the CSD tag I added to this article with the edit summary "Rm db-nocontext to replace with correct CSD criteria". I've been doing some NPP the past few days, and have found a handful of articles in other languages. Is there a CSD tag for foreign language articles that are not on other wikis, or a different procedure for dealing with them? I'd rather not mistag any more articles if I can avoid it. Thanks. —Torchiesttalkedits22:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very precise procedure for dealing with non English articles. It is detailed on this page (most of which I co-rewrote a year or so ago) - it's an essential tutorial for page patrolling although the new NewPagesFeed still does not address many of the cases it should. If it hasn't been deleted yet you can check out the new CSD tag I have added to the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am jaykissan.i have noticed you have deleted a page archworlds.com. but the page have its important as its related to new company established in New Delhi,India on 2012. You can give a direction to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykissan (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page was deleted per A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. This organisation or website is very new and has not demonstrated through articles dedicated to it in the press that it meets our Wikipedia notability guidelines. You can read about the requirements on the page at at Wikipedia:Notability. If it can meet those guidelines, and reliable sources independent 3rd party sources can be found, there may be a chance that it can be included in the encyclopedia, but you should create the article in your user space first where you can ask for it be reviewed by an established editor before moving it to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
Begin Again (Taylor Swift song)
Please unlock Begin Again as posting correct information is not what you claimed here: Protected Begin Again (Taylor Swift song): Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 12:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 12:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC) it is unfair of you and I will be reporting you for this as well that I have given 9 sources that contradict the information posted on the page and I AM THE ONE edit warring/content disputing, there is none just 2 editors who do not want to realize that they were proven wrong. That is not fair to me and you had no right to do that. Please see the pages talk page to see my 9 sources.
With only 39 edits to Wikipedia, 21 of which are to various talk pages, I suggest you might wish to familiarise yourself with some of our policies. Please see also the comments on your talk page at: User talk:184.58.18.72. You may also find this page intertesting. And again, please sign your posts. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are the second person to insult me and the third that will not listen and now all of Wikipedia will pay for it thank you you have given me some great stuff to help shut this fake encyclopedia down. Oh and if you block me for this so you know that I was given legal advice to change my IP address. Wikipedia does tons of illegal stuff and has given more evidence to my case to get it shut down. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.18.72 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my bluntness but I have criticised your nomination of this article for deletion at the AFD and ARS. Your comments would be appreciated as it may be that I have missed some aspect of your thinking or am just being too harsh. But the matter currently seems to be symptomatic of a systemic failure; the process just isn't working as it is supposed to and so we need to rethink it. I know that you have similar views about RfA but the basic process of article improvement is even more fundamental and, if you don't get this, then who will? Warden (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That is a huge range of edits and not all from one contributor. Having looked, I'm not sure that they need to be revdel'd, but I could have missed something. Could you ask for a second opinion, please? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio plot section is there for each edit, and is major enough that it should be revdeleted. I could post to MRGs page, but she won't be on for another 10 hours or so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If it's only a copyvio, why not just use the restore button to revert the whole thing to the last stable version before the nonsense started? The diffs have been around for a couple of months already and the article is already cached by Google so there's probably no urgency or need to wake Maggie. However, there are a couple of admins online who also have a clue on this sort of thing. Try user talk:JamesBWatson - I think he's around, and it's only 8:47 pm in in New York, so also try user talk:DGG, he's usually at his computer when he's at home. Link them to this discussion because I think there's possibly more to this article than meets the eye, and it may need several pairs of eyes on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A new plot section was provided (the original edition didn't have a plot) so the only thing needed was the rev delete. Luckily she was online (I noticed her posting on her talk page). Hopefully my tools don't act up again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to this would be 'Not enough recent vandalism to justify protection'(but I have not checked any sub-pages you might have). Any warnings you receive might or might not be justified - you would have to take this up with those editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were offline, so I asked User:Ponyo (he protected them all). I do that with all my userspace pages because I have been vandalized enough that it was just best to indef semi-protect everything except my talk page (and that I feel like having indef semi-protected all the time anymore). It takes away the added stress of constantly reverted pages people shouldn't be editing in the first place and having to revert vandalism from people (always vandals and trolls) I have pissed off doing my "job". But it all worked out in the end. :) Hope you have a Good Evening. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being infinitely more eloquent and patient in your explanations to them than I am able to be. I deleted four different attempts at explaining what you managed to do much more articulately... mostly because all of mine had some sarcastic slant starting with "However have we managed to fight vandalism for the last half-decade without a bunch of high school students to instruct us on how to do it correctly???" I did want to point out that I wasn't encouraging them to continue templating anyone that looks even vaguely like they might want to revert vandalism, but rather suggesting that they do a narrowly targeted approach toward leaving a helpful note to those that appear to need help with that (which is, in my mind, very few people). But as TenOfAllTrades once pointed out, CVUA seems to thrive on taking something that is very easy and pretending it's something hard. About twenty thousand vandalism reverts worth of experience tells me that anyone who requires extensive coaching to revert vandalism probably shouldn't be doing it to begin with. Trusilver08:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that CV is not rocket science. It doesn't need a PhD to remove 'penis' (actually I think ClueBot does that one automatically). Nevertheless there are some subtle vandalims of a kind that the neither the bots nor the CVUers catch. I catch them because I have a speciall school article watchlist, and another 10,000+ sensitive pages on my wl. What I have tried to do by cutting down CVUA to the bare essentials was to give no room at all for clerking and coordination in order to clear out the good faith but not good-skill work that was done by the former group of editors. The fact that Dan and Theo (not so much Theo) are back in there with their suggestions does not inspire much confidence, and in spite of my stressing the word maturity umpteen times, the penny still does not seem to have dropped. I'll still never understand why NPP is open for everyone to do when CV needs a user right like Rollback - NPP needs a near-admin level of clue and if done wrongly, can wreak a lot more damage than a simple inaccurate vandal revert. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Djathinkimacowboy unblock
I have taken the liberty of making an unblock where you were waiting for an answer. I have given my reason here. If you object, then I apologise in advance of receiving your reprimand. I thought it better to get the matter settled rather than leaving it pending, for several reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Well the user has now explicitly accepted your terms anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was just waiting on his agreement to the 6 months 1R that I had omitted to state. So no, of course I have no objections whatsoever. Thanks for going ahead. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means what it says. It means that although you rarely agree with anything I do here, I value most of your contributions to discussions and once thought that you could be a potential candidate for adminship. Hence I'm rather surprised to see you resorting to personal attacks. I'm not complaining, because I, and as many other admins have reported, we syops are used to taking a lot of criticism and derision and usually try to respond to it politely and with dignity, or just not respond at all. That said, I'm never too embarrassed to leave any comments on my talk page, whether they are appropriate or not. I leave others to judge. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The embarrassment is that you've missed the point so completely, so grotesquely, that apparently I need to spoonfeed the most basic concepts to you. What's worse, is that once upon a time I might have imagined that people reading my talkpage (or yours) might have the gumption to point out that hey, you've misunderstood. Seemingly I don't even have that luxury any more. Will I bother with the spoonfeeding? I have no idea. I'm not sure there's any point. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I really can be bothered with spoonfeeding. I've commented at length on the assumptions made about my choice of image and image caption, here. That shouldn't have been necessary.
Some items in your response here (and there) puzzle me. You and I may have argued about issues related to school notability, a long time ago; if so I imagine it was more than a year ago and I don't remember anything about it.
What else I may "rarely agree with", I have no idea. I have always supported your efforts towards RfA reform, even if, like many others, I never had time to engage in the project itself. As for CVUA, my comments (both publicly and privately) contributed to, and perhaps helped initiate, your efforts to restructure CVUA.
You should be careful with comments like the ones you made to me and about Sigma, and I think recent commenters here on your talk page (about what you "want" them to say or do) help illuminate this. No-one should ever be in the least bit interested in "if I do what Kudpung says then Kudpung will nominate me", and in fact anyone who leaped at such things would be a very questionable candidate. News: many of us are prepared to entertain the idea of trying an RfA, but it's not the big deal you want to make it. Connecting it with ridiculous behaviour like that, is only going to shame you and drive legitimate candidates away.
Regarding your antics on my talk page, I accept that it may have been a mistake based on a too quick reading. I also see that you view yourself, in your own words, as "a Wikipedia black-belt". But I do suggest that you take a little more time, and thought, over how you direct your karate-kicks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've been in the forefront of RfA reform for two years; naturally this brings me some personal flak, some of which is downright disingenuous paraphrasing of my comments and downright lies. Over the years I have never nominated a single candidate for RfA and only ever co-nominated two in the 200+ I have participated in, and all my oppose votes have been measure, friendly, and helpful. I rarely, if ever, rise to the bait, but in this instance, regarding your 'antics' at WT:RfA, and your conjecture above I will simply ask you to refrain from posting on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) I have eliminated any links to networking sites and apparent disallowed sources per your request such as “bare citations”. Any major claims not substantiated by independent citation have been removed. Most textual links are to internal wiki sites that do not contain significant issues. All multiple citations for the same link have been removed.
2) Re the issue of WP:bio which states that “For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”
The subject of this page meets all of those criteria. The page is the only one to my knowledge dedicated to Mr. Layton and is not as you have suggested part of a “Link Farm” - if I understand your meaning. Mr. Layton has consistently avoided publicity over the years and others have written about him in sometimes inaccurate and occasionally in a libelous manner – particularly in the Middle East. He is known to virtually tens of thousands of people worldwide for many different things he has done by people who find his life of “interest” and “significance” for one reason or another. This PAGE is merely a statement for the record of who he is and what he has done. Assertion of notability…
A) He is a published author of books recognized by other prominent authors who themselves have wiki pages or who have been NY Times best sellers (see “published works). His books have been recognized by a US Senator and Lt. Governor as substantially contributing to the effort to achieve democracy in Kurdistan of Iraq
B) He has testified before the US Senate on the issues of Genocide against the Kurds as an expert on the subject along with other notables (1 of 5 chosen for hearings for the Senate Foreign relations Committee hearings and he is listed in Library of Congress as such
C) He has been country director for one of the largest political and health care projects ever run by the US State Department in Kurdistan of Iraq (HCP)
D) He has consulted for the Kurdish government and represented them in Washington DC
E) He has directed a large British/Kurdish public/private development partnership in Kurdistan half owned by the Kurdish Government under the auspices of the Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani
F) He is recognized as a key promoter of religious freedom in Kurdistan of Iraq and has been referenced in numerous articles and magazines worldwide
G) He is an associate of The Next Century Foundation – a renowned conflict resolution entity in London
H) He served on the faculty of The University of the Presidents (YPO) an organization comprised of some of the top CEOs in the world
… To name a few of his accomplishments and pursuits that makes him a person of interest to potential Wikipedia readers. I have researched many Wiki sites and believe Mr. Layton certainly qualifies as a person of “significance and interest” compared with many others who have been included in Wikipedia
3) As for the issue of style – Apart from the issue of citation format I am not sure what you mean as I have researched a number of bio sites that seem to have the same style and in fact copied the style from another wiki site to insure the style was consistent with others in Wikipedia. However if style is an issue and I can understand what the issues are clearly I will make any necessary corrections.
Thanks again for your input and I hope this serves to resolve the issues you have raised.
I just tidied this page a bit, added a reference etc., as a base point, even though I feel the subject's notability is at best borderline. Having done that, I was about to move it to a properly-named page with capitalised surname, when I found it is protected. So presumably there is a past here that I was unaware of? Anyway, if that is so, perhaps it is best to take this to a more permanent resolution one way or another by titling it properly and then going via AfD? AllyD (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this from the Protection log: "02:28, 4 October 2012 Kudpung (talk | contribs) protected Lino Nicolosi [create=sysop] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated) (hist)" AllyD (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - only admins can move to a protected page name. Hoiwever, there is certainly a history to this. The creator has username COI and is spamming with all sorts of stuff for Nicolosi. I would tag it for deletion A7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Here you have left the latest of the series of notices you've been leaving on my talk page, telling me to read WP:ORG. No issues with that, you're right. I could have chosen to csd or prod it. However, as it happens, that simply skipped my mind.
I would appreciate if you didn't use such a formal tone since you tag me frequently and I also appreciate your efforts to bring me to terms with the procedure. I happen to like your altruistic notices, but I would like it more if you interact with me in congenial, informal terms as opposed to very rigid-seeming, formal notices. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)15:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mrt3366. Well, that's about nine times in the last few days I've had to drop you a message about your patrolling. In fact if I were to use the standard template messages they would be even less friendly. How about starting to get your patrolling right and then I won't have to message you so often? I keep offering you help but you never ask. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am wrong, but are you saying that if don't do patrolling exactly the way you want me to do (PROD or CSD the pages you want to delete) then I ought to not patrol pages?? If that is the case then you should know that you cannot force somebody like that. I've already told you that the pages I patrol usually aren't chosen by me. Plus I am new at this. Hence, you cannot or rather, should not put pressure on me this way, this is not helping me. I am freaking out more than anything else. If you feel I didn't tag a page with enough tags, then add tags which you think I've left out, to the page after I'm done and please leave me alone.
However, if you sincerely want to help me then first and foremost change your stern and officious tone. You're not anybody's boss here (certainly not mine), some politeness is looked forward to from a senior editor and especially from an administrator. I don't wish to precipitate wisdom-ridden disquisitions on you, but with greater power comes heavier responsibility. If you can accomplish these two then teaching me anything might not seem such an arduous task. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)07:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus I have my own issues with the understanding of WP:A7. I've had problems with CSDs in the recent past (I told you) hence I am eschewing CSDing pages for now. Please understand my trepidations with that. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)07:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're starting off on the wrong foot here. I may be one of the pioneers of research and improvement of the NPP system but I certainly do not seek to impose my own will. My involvement with NPP and deletion policies began long before I was given the 'powers' of adminship, and being an admin has relatively little to do with it. Fra from being stern and officious, the messages you get from me are polite and to the point, and are very similar to the messages other experienced users send to patrollers who aren't getting it quite right. The reason you get so many from me is because I'm one of the most active editors in this field. Nobody wants, or can force you to to patrol pages in any particular way - we are all volunteers here and we do what we can, when we can, and we appreciate every effort to both give new articles a boost, and to ensure that the encylopedia is kept free of unsuitable new pages. However, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for all this and they were decided not by me but by community consensus. Although it involves a lot of reading and practice, our policies for notability and deletion are clear and sufficiently unambiguous , so patrollers should not find it too hard after reading WP:DELETION and WP:NPP. If however they do need help, they are welcome to go to this page, but I must tell you that at the moment I am very busy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a good example: While patrolling new pages in the last hour or so I cam across Asmako, a page that you tagged and reviewed as OK for insertion. It is not even in English, so i doubt that you have followed my advice and read WP:NPP where there are clear instruction for what to do with such articles. There is very little I can do to help you with with this, because I actually wrote those instructions, and I can't think of a better way of explaining them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The problem is the pages you keep referring to are very, very confusing and do not help new reviewers like me at all. When I came across Asmako, I couldn't fathom a word of it. The WP:NPP page says use google to translate the page (I don't have good net speed) and actually discourages tagging pages with {{db-foreign}} or {{db-a2}}. That's what I got from the page. Hence, when I couldn't detect the language, I tagged it with {{notenglish}}. Apparently it was not enough. BTW, I didn't pass it for inclusion it was already included. I need some practice okay, be patient. Yes, I could have done more but chose not to.
I got the hang of BLPPROD (clear and simple), I think, same way I will get the hang of other rationales for deletion. Don't worry. Right now you're kind of putting unwarranted pressure on me which is not helping, at all rather I am freaking out. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)12:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, we all work on Wikipedia in our own time, at our own pace, and not for some employer who demands a return for a salary. If giving you polite advice is to be construed as pressure, I don't really see how I can help you further. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. You're misinterpreting my words. I am not asking you to stop doing what you're doing, I am simply asking for a slight change in tone (from formal warning to informal/personal advices in congenial terms).
"If giving you polite advice is to be construed as pressure" - it's not construed, it is pressure in shape of polite and reasonable warning (which I don't dislike per se). I just want you to be clear and informal (more congenial). Something like "you could have done this next time keep this in mind.", preferably with a {{smiley}}. Am I asking too much? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)12:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Monsunia: All geographical locations are generally kept unless the article is a blatant hoax. It helps if the creator provided the geo location. What you might have considered doing would be to fix the layout and add at least one category. If you're using the New Pages Feed, it would help to leave a friendly message for the creator on what they can still do tp improve the article.
Star Island, Ontario: Certainly doesn't have much content or context yet, but again, it looks as if it might have been further developed - as above, geographocal locations are hardly toxic, and we have a rule of not tagging A1 or A3 too quickly. I'd be surprised if the creator bothers to continue working on it now.
The essence of patrolling pages is accuracy not speed, and remember, you're not alone out there, others are patrolling too, so the very best advice is if you don't know what to do, leave it and move on to another page. Go for the low hanging fruit first and patrol the harder ones when you have gained more confidence with the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The essence of patrolling pages is accuracy not speed" - Okay. Exactly yes. This is helping. instead of directing me to pages just tell me what to do. Thanx . I didn't want to upset you with the comment on PamD's talk page. Don't worry, I am learning. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)15:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About Supriya Maskey pagein wikipedia
Dear sir,
Supriya maskey is the recent pageant holder and i have tagged references. You can check out the references on news and websites. I confirm that the description are legitimate and true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binod.hyoju (talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I asked a colleague, another admin, for his opinion. Please go to this page to read his assessment: User talk:JamesBWatson#Supriya Maskey. The article will probably be deleted but please consider writing more articles about Nepal. Do remember though, that they must be well referenced, and if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks James for all your dedication to go through out the article Supriya Maskey. Thats good information to what I have learnt. Please recheck the references that i have coded for reliable source as the news here in nepal is popping out In every papers and websites. You should go to Nepalese council website and also littleworld website to see the reference it it is reliable information or not. I would be happy if you assist me to help me how to ref the sources. Lets do it. Binod Hyoju 02:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC) --Binod Hyoju 02:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I wouldn't have a clue if it's part of Twinkle or not. Doing WP:NPP, I knew that "Banu" is a Turkish female personal name, could recognise Amuteya is a small village in northern Namibia, and that Bojihwayangdong buralsongseonsaeng was a famous bit of literary snark. As for the scripts however, I just copy and paste them into the .css and .js and whatnot user-thingumies. The script SPI function that I can see goes: TW -> ARV -> WP:SPI. In this particular case, not working for me. Wouldn't have the foggiest clue why that is.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Kudpung,
The RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ, of which you were co-nominator, has identified a number of community concerns which may rise above the usual level of past unsatisfactory interactions, conflicts and personal dislikes which are typical of RFA in its current format. In particular there are concerns relating to off-wiki vandalism and on-wiki disruption of which you were presumably unaware at the time of identifying Sigma as a suitable Admin. candidate. As prominent and widely respected Administrators your endorsement of RF candidates is highly influential, as can be seen from several of the supporting !votes. Therefore, in view of the level of concern relating to the past activities of the candidate, it is sufficiently important to ask you to consider whether you wish to comment on whether the candidate still has the confidence indicated in your nomination statement. There is a section on the RFA Talk Page. Rgds,
Leaky Caldron11:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are fully entitled to decline to answer my specific question but in answering I'd be grateful if you didn't answer a different one. Leaky Caldron11:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I always answer posts on my talk page. I have provided what I consider to be an appropriate comment. I will also be raising a qusry as to whether your contacting the nominators in this manner is appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my query above. Your continued support as nominator is a matter entirely for you and your candidate deserves no further negative interventions at his RFA. Leaky Caldron15:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mail
Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello Kudpung, thank you for addressing the page I created about Gordon Neufeld, I updated it and wrote the explanation why I think it should stay. Hope everything is right now. Please let me know if I can do more to make it valid.
Irenru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irenru (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you jamesBwatson and Kudpung I have studied your points on editing and will apply for next to come. Thanks for assisting me. I was unaware of references duplication and now i think everything is on the track. I have understood how to code the references. I apologize for the mistakes I did unintentionally.I am now aware of the use of reference properly. I have to research throughly. Getting back to study wiki rules... You guys are great. Thanks once again for showing the dedication to assisting me... --Binod Hyoju 13:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binod.hyoju (talk • contribs)
Sigma, too
Hi friend. You might give Sigma a nudge that this would be a good time to demonstrate maturity with a voluntary withdrawal. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Revisiting RfA reform
Hi Kudpung. I was wondering what you thought had changed based on this recent RfA? Before running back to solutions such as minimum requirements or spending another 6-8 months trying to reform RfA, I think it would be better to actually discuss what went wrong (if anything) at the RfA. Perhaps let the dust settle and have some rational, focussed discussion at WT:RfA. Remember, people are allowed to oppose candidates, for whatever reason they wish - even if we feel the candidate is a good one, consensus may not be with us. WormTT(talk) 09:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally unconcerned with what the voters think of me or the other nominators. I have no affinity with the candidate, and although I thought sincerely and genuinely that he would make an excellent admin, we can't win them all (neither did WereSpielChequers), and I am personally untouched by an eventual non-promotion. What concerns me most is the collateral damage to the system by turning RfAs into a dramafest. WT:RfA is almost certainly not the best place to discuss reform - that's why we started RFA2011 as a place to work with a better signal-to-noise ratio. This time round there are some very clear indications of what needs to be changed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFA
I suspect your antipathy towards me stems from our first interaction last December when you responded to a civil question with an unnecessarily combative response for which you subsequently sort of recognised that your attitude was inappropriate. Subsequently I have ridiculed some preposterous attempts at RFA reform (which I am entitled to do) which has obviously antagonised you further, culminating in you referring me to WP:AN yesterday. Your fellow nominators were not in the least put out by my approach but you were happy to see me suffer bad faith hazing in which you freely participated. Whatever the reason for your approach, I think you are over-assertive and on occasion aggressive without justification and on that basis it is likely that we will rarely see eye to eye. Where I do agree with you I will say so. As you welcome forthright comments that is what I've given you. Here are more detailed responses to your comments. No obligation to reply, we will not persuade one another.
I read it all and in my response probably unfairly focused on the bit I most disagreed with
Without prejudice to the current RfA, open, honest, robust debate should not be a licence to turn an RfA into a dramfest - agreed. That includes Admins. like you. As I've often said, they should know how to behave better than most
If the community insists on being allowed to hand the bit to 6-month, 6,000-edit candidates, then there is no justification whatsoever for dragging up dirt that is older for someone who has been around longer and contributed a lot more content. - Where is the evidence that the community has "insisted" on anything like that? RFA is down to the individual circumstance at the time and if a 6 month editor passes, they pass. If an 18 month editor turns up with "baggage" older than 6 months that is the risk they run. It is at the will of the community, not a select group applying what they think are suitable rules
What people do outside official Wikimedia projects is also no concern of ours - I disagree and as this seems to have been the turning point for that RFA, nor do a lot of other people. You are of course entitled to you own opinion but not your own facts and the majority are apparently against vandalism - where and when matters less that the fact that it happend at all
nominators are under no obligation whatsoever to make such research - I have thoughts about this which are inappropriate to discuss during this RFA
Candidates should be judged solely on the merits or demerits of their work here - same point as above
Cunard's oppose vote was little more than an attack on the integrity of the nominators, much of which was grotesquely off topic - yes, some of it was off-topic. I believe a majority of it was a convincing & detailed oppose rationale. Leaky Caldron10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Do you think you could slightly tweak the opening sentence in your message to Boing? The uninformed reader might think that your link to my comments above and the abusive emails, are by association, connected. Despite my own views on the matter I flatly condemn anyone resorting to abuse. rgds. Leaky Caldron13:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just seen that and I'm grateful. I did not see your message above otherwise I would have replied sooner. Re WP:NPA, I can do this either of 2 ways. As a precursor, I understood that you were used to criticism User_talk:Kudpung#Would_you_care_to_explain_yourself.3F. However, as I've exceeded those bounds then (1) I apologise. (2) I will refactor as appropriate if you tell me specifically what you take exception to. Leaky Caldron14:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check this instance of section blanking. And do whatever the need dictates. I, for one, think it's a case of WP:POV (but it's based on a cursory glance so it's susceptible to mistakes), now given my terribly slow net connection and relative inexperience, I cannot afford to follow any lengthy dialogue. You're best suited for this, Kudpung.
I think you handled the Infosuv issue appropriately. With the section blanking, you would have to check the references that were in the removed content to see if the claims are correctly supported. If they are, then without prejudice to WP:UNDUE, it can be restored. Otherwise the removal was POV. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the contents still haven't been restored. I checked the references and found that they were correctly corroborating the content removed, however the reason I am consulting you is I am iffy about "BLP violation" accusation, myself. Please, at least check the references for me. I would not like to get involved in these reversals. If you check and give me a "proceed ahead" permission, that would be helpful. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)07:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I checked the sources in the removed section and the section is a BLP violation and a a coatracked attack on one of the show's participants. The sources are a blog, search results from ripoffreport.com (user generated content) and a synthesis of primary sources. I would strongly recommend not restoring it. You can get a second opinion at WP:BLPN, but I'm pretty sure they'll tell you the same thing. In fact, if someone else restores it, you should definitely report this to BLPN. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Voceditenore
I somewhat don't understand.
The deleted sources are:
As you can see there are some sources claiming to be operated by state departments (*.gov). But you focus on only "ripoffreport.com", why? Besides, there is a reason why I said, I am iffy about that accusation. I honestly don't understand why is it that you say they are all "blogs". Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)08:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were all blogs. The only thing that can be reliably sourced is that Tassone claims that he has a moving business and also has a comedy act. (refs 1 and 2). Note that ref 2 merely says he's a comedian. It does not remotely verify (a) that his comedy routine utilized the "Scott the Mover" persona or (b) that he used it until his initial appearance on Storage Hunters. The ripoffreport.com is unacceptable per the reason I gave you above. The California documents are inadmissible per WP:BLPPRIMARY. But we shouldn't clog up Kudpung's page with this. If you still have any lingering doubts, I suggest you ask at the WP:BLPN. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The only thing that can be reliably sourced is that Tassone claims that he has a moving business and also has a comedy act. (refs 1 and 2)" — Would you like to improve the article by re-editing the deleted-section "criticism" then? I am asking you because I am not equipped with the knowledge or the necessary experience that you have.
Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 23:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I am almost ready for bed. Just after 12:00am here in California. I am going to have a bite to eat and then go to bed for the evening (took me a while to re-adjust my sleep pattern after a really long night a while back at DR/N) I will return tomorrow to add a few ideas I have to the link you provided.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query at WTT's page
My thoughts are here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=516792853&oldid=516791990. I think something along those lines would begin to improve matters. I have no idea if such has previously been considered and dismissed. With your long experience at RFA reform you will know best. If you see any merit in such then it will need the likes of you to advocate it, not me. If they are not worthy of consideration then all I can do is watch from the sidelines. rgds. Leaky Caldron
n
Improvement begins with your own participation at RfA (which I took 2 hours this morning to closely examine). I'm actually getting quite sick of campaigning for reform at RfA - all it bring me is criticism and PA from people who continue their campaign of character assasination behind my back. Change is now in the hands of those who have brought the system to its knees - as you have inferred, admins are not allowed to do anything about it. Now please refrain from posting on this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know how you feel. I spent hundreds of hours pioneering and and managing the WP:RFA2011 project and as you can probably understand, I'm sick of these repugnant voters. I've reopened that project, check it out under its moved name. See my various comments at WT:RFA, the discussion with LC above at 'Query at WTT's page' and'RFA' and the conversation with Worm, this] and tnis piece of blatant hypocrisy from both of them. If there's anything I can do to help I will even if it compromises my future runs for crat or arb. The problem is that admins are expected to take untold abuse and are not allowed to react to it. For starters, while I value Scottywong's initiative, that block should have been indef, with a permanent site ban - enough is enough. But since arbcom has practically decreed that RfA is a safe haven for those who smugly pride themselves in their disruption and their success at deliberately bringing the RfA system to its knees, I don't really see where we can go from here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you checked out the discussions listed above. iYour are echoing words almost verbatim that I have said many, many times., including that this is not about Sigma, but about the sanity of RfA. When I see such disgraceful behavour, I think Wikipedia has become a bloody loonybin. It makes me just want to sod off and find another hobby. The behaviour of some of the Foundation staff in Washington wasn't much better either. You've got mail. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Could you have a look at the protection you applied at Rangers F.C, as you only put semi on for a day, whereas I think you meant it indef (which it probably should have IMHO). Could you drop a note on the article talk page as there's a request there and I mentioned I'd raise it with you. Thanks. GedUK12:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry
i have just found ou t that user Electriccatfish2 has been using you for his sock puppet account
Could you go into some more detail about this please? Show us your evidence? I noticed you have been dealing with eletriccatfish2 before, so are you sure this is true? Rcsprinter(yak) @ 22:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop accusing me of all kind of things? I hate to bite, but you're basically trolling me and posting claims about me doing all sorts of stuff. If you're upset because I tagged your article for deletion or reverted vandalism that you may have created, please inform me on my talk page instead of trolling me. Kudpung is my mentor, not my sockpuppet. Please see WP: SOCK. Thank you. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The way it rains in Thailand, I could see an electric catfish being able to swim right up to you and begin controlling your mind... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys for all of your help. It's quite uncomfortable to be trolled around the site by someone who makes outrageous claims about you. Thankfully, User: Electriccatfish3 was indeffed a few minutes after he created an attack page about me. I guess that's what you get when you do NPP and vandal-fighting. Anyways, thanks for all of your help. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stepping back and regrouping
You have done a great deal of work. I need to remember that when posting in order not to allow others to use me to bring you down. I don't wish to begin suggesting things that will just be brushed off by others in an attempt to make me out as some freak or someone that can be walked over. At the same time, while I have the ability to fight in a similar manner (trust me.....I can be a far bigger ass than others) it won't improve the project. I need to step back and regroup before I submitt any ideas. This is a serious issue. One that I feel needs to be addressed in the best possible manner. Give me some time and i hope to post some ideas. If not then I probably decided it was not worth being personaly destroyed over.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The time has finally come come for every constructive effort to reach a solution. Being a bigger ass than the others though, doesn't help and there are plenty of ways you can continue to offer your thoughts and I hope you will. You can be absolutely sure that when I revert to my occasional blunteness, I'm still exercising enormous restraint although it annoys me greatly to do so. There are some people here who if I ever came across them them at a meet up or a conference I would feel like throwing my food or beer in their faces - but I wouldn't of course, and I would have behave as if they weren't trolls at all. That's probably the reason why I don't go to meetings when I know they will be there. That I'm not present at those discussions is possibly Wikipedia's net loss - I don't know - but the trolls would argue otherwise of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know about this over at New Editor Retention. I had no idea this was an actual initiative. After reading through the proposal and bugzilla comments on it, I am also sorely disappointed WMF was not on-board with it and am frustrated by some of their behavior in the comments. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As we all were. Even those who opposed the idea were astounded that the WMF could reject a major policy proposal, discussed by over 500 editors, and that was passed with a clear consensus, not only for the proposed policy, but also for a second RfC on its implementation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review
Is there a reason why I can be denied this for so long, for such a mistake, and still be possibly denied after the next three months. I know there are users who aren't perfect with most of their edits, however, clearly I try to at least halt the vandals on my talk page and and further contributions, I tend to at least help in some reviews, if only possible denial I may find this denying my right to use the review and send a complaint to Wikipedia itself.
All I'm saying is I trying to use this review to suggest a more suitable table for articles in Wikipedia and not to show off in any form, I understand the policies from Wikipedia:Reviewing, request, and forms of vandalism policies I am stilling willing to learn the review, once again, I am willing to build articles by using the review and other methods to help new articles --GoShow (............................) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately GoShow, there are still to many recent concerns being expressed about your editing. persistently applying for users rights doesn't help either. Try to get through the next 3 months without any issues and we'll look again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History has shown that generally only 'Autopatrolled' is requested by users other than the editor concerned, which makes sense because Autopatrolled is a technical aid for the New Page Patrol system and not a 'hat' or a privilege for users to collect. That said, PERM is not a mini RfA where users are nominated and where !voting takes place - something which the non admins who post there often fail to understand. Proxy requests for an editor who has already been given 'no' for an answer are also likely to be met with a decline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not strictly doing anything wrong or a breach of any policy that I'm aware of, but making proxy requests would not be looked upon favourably and you might be told that the user should make the application him/herself. After all, if an editor is clueful enough to obtain the user right, shouldn't they be mature enough to make the requests themselves? By the same token, candidates for adminship who can't do their RfA transclusions themselves have already demonstrated that they can't master an operation that is essential to the work of admins. A point to ponder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I guess I will hold off on making any proxy requests. I have seen more than one instance where a candidate improperly transcluded his/her RfA. If I remember correctly, that might have made me a little nervous back when I was doing Bagumba's RfA. AutomaticStrikeout04:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)(Non-administrator comment)-- Kudpung, you can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see any foul play in suggesting directly to the user that they apply for rollback, if you believe they have enough experience in reverting, in recognizing vandalism, and know that the user will use it responsibly. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have understood the conversation here. Nobody is suggesting anything remotely like foul play. One of the problems here on Wikipedia - as ctlearly demonstrated by the vitriolic polemic that is now reigning over discussions about RfA, for example, is that the readers of messages assume too much. If *I* believe users have enough experience in reverting, in recognizing vandalism, and know that the user will use it responsibly, I will accord the rights. I can't speak for other admins - but I do a thorough research first and the applicant must have demonstrated overall responsibility. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think "foul play" was a poorly-thought term to use on my part and didn't represent my understanding of the situation. I think "inappropriateness" would be more fitting. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the way I read it, AutomaticStrikeout asked if it was appropriate, or if he would be doing anything wrong, to suggest someone else for rollback. You said that it wasn't technically inappropriate, but that it wouldn't be looked upon favorably. I think we are mincing words at this point, but to me, it seems like it would be OK (and would not be looked upon unfavorably...ugh, double negative) for AutomaticStrikeout to suggest to a user directly that they apply for rollback, given that sufficient research has been done on the user's contributions and behavior to support that rollback would be used responsibly. I'm sorry that my choice of words was not very good, but I was just attempting to make a suggestion to AutomaticStrikeout based on how I've learned about various permissions and tools here. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which ever way you attempt to read it, there is no ambiguity and 'my answers were clear. I did not say it was it wasn't technically inappropriate; I said: Not strictly doing anything wrong or a breach of any policy that I'm aware of' , and the semantics are quite different. You and AutomaticStrikeout are welcome to suggest to your friends that some extra tools might be of use to them, but that was not the subject of the conversation either, and was neither mentioned nor inferred. AutomaticStrikeout concluded by saying: 'Ok. I guess I will hold off on making any proxy requests'. Nobody is mincing words here except those who are trying to interpret things that weren't said. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I am really truly sorry that I've misinterpreted you and accused you of being picky with word choice. It might be possible that we differ on how we interpret the word inappropriate in this situation. I honestly didn't think I was overstating or misrepresenting your response, but clearly I am in the wrong here, and I apologize for my behavior. I do think my suggestion was related to AutomaticStrikeout's original question, as he seemed to want to help another user gain rollback permissions. So, from my perspective, it made sense for him to suggest it to the user directly. I know it wasn't mentioned explicitly, but I thought it might be helpful. That's all. It was not my intention to step on your toes, or make any negative accusations about anyone's conduct or opinions here, but clearly I didn't do a great job about that. I will be more mindful about making responses here in the future. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. Sometimes I don't make myself as clear as I could . It's always hard when we don't have the advantage of intonation on the written word. This is how the Internet has changed the way we communicate. In the old days when people used to write formal letters to each other, language was more precise, but nowadays with email, chat rooms, SMS, and web forums, people tend to write as they would speak, and forget that those important nuances are missing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, fresh perspective. Thanks for sending it my way. Those comments span across a few different issues, and some of them resonate with me. I'll make some comments here, but don't feel like you need to respond to them unless you want to.
I agree that a lot of users feel a sense of duty around certain places here, where the extent of that duty can sometimes be productive and other times is absurd and POINTy. No wonder that "staying out of ANI" is considered a plus. However, some stuff doesn't sit well with me. Call me biased because I might be one of those whippersnappers, but I don't really subscribe to the idea of judging RfA candidates or others based on how old their account is / whether they've had access to Twinkle / whether they've "accomplished something." These requirements ignore the fact that many experienced editors who fail these criteria can have well-informed and valuable opinions that are worth listening to. I mean, if one such user has a set of personal criteria for an RfA, isn't it just easier to appraise their support / opposition based on the quality of their criteria? Anyway, I am sure those predictors work sometimes to weed out unnecessary comments, but they seem like broad generalizations.
By pure coincidence, I just happened on this which appears to illustrate Drmies' point perfectly. Ironically, the one complaining here also fits squarely into that category. Broadly, I come across these problems every day at PERM, AfC, AfD, RPP, AiV, NPP, etc., and it's one of the reasons, for example, which also led the CVUA being remodeled. The catalyst for the current arbcom case was also an enthusiastic but unwise attempt at pre-emptive clerking. I tried within seconds to nip it in the bud, but it was too late. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been watching these events unfold, but I really have no desire to participate in them. I have nothing constructive to add. As far as I've been able to ascertain the context of each, I am sure each user believed their actions were justified in policy, guidelines, or their personal philosophy, but were still done in poor judgment. When it comes to interpersonal situations and conflict, something many editors, myself included, can always get better at is knowing when to pick your battles. I do believe it is important to speak out against perceived injustices, but it is also helpful to know when you will add nothing helpful to the discussion, even if something seems unfair. This is a difficult challenge, though, particularly if it is a matter or person you care about. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a very active admin, I constantly get baited and lies told about me - enough to add another string of diffs to the current Arbcom case - but I try to stay out of it and let things take their course without my interference. For example, although you might have seen me around at ANI, in fact I'm not one of the regulars and I very rarely comment there because it's swamped by the wannabe admins. The problem is, the current arbcom case has now lost us one of our nicest admins, a personal friend, into retirement, and a couple of good content editors. Seems like the anti-admin brigade are having a field day even if they do run the risk of being blocked or banned. Of course, Arbcom has handled this all very, very badly and the next thing won't be a call for RfA reform, but probably an Arbcom reform. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
School block for Halton Catholic District School Board (HCDSB), Burlington, ON
Hi Kudpung, I saw that you issued a 6 month school block for IP 209.250.173.254, resolving to Halton Catholic District School Board (HCDSB), Burlington, ON. I have found them to vandalise using multiple IPs at the same time recently. Therefore, for the school block to become effective, you might also need to block 209.250.172.102, 209.250.172.114 and 209.250.173.99 (those were the three other "interacting" IP addresses, when I stumbled upon them), but there might be more. Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but did you intend to remove my advice to the user after others had referenced it? If not I would like it restored. I'm brushing up on the various mop activities prior to a run for the tool. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, it was unintentional while transcluding the unblock decline template. I've restored it. If you're considering getting a mop, you may wish to read this if you haven't done so already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User rights
Hey Kudpung, you know more about this stuff than I do--I noticed you denied some user rights on User talk:GoShow; right after your message I commented on their incorrect use of STiki (I'm not exactly sure what that is) to claim vandalism/test edits. I have some other issues with this editor (websites claimed to be RS on astrology articles), but I though you might like to know. Ah, I see now that they have rollback--if it were up to me I'd pull it, but I would appreciate your second opinion. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I nearly pulled their Rollback myself. There is clearly a competency/maturity issue here so as far as I'm concerned you can go ahead and remove it - you have my full support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above exchange was very late last night here. This morning I spent a couple of hours researching more. Perhaps a removal of the tool may be premature after all, but a close eye certainly needs to be kept as I found a few dubious vandalism reverts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a blocked template on this IP's talk page, but they actually don't appear to still be blocked. I'm not sure if you're currently around to look at this, but if not, maybe one of your talk page stalkers can take care of it. AutomaticStrikeout05:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done deliberately because one wasn't put there before. There is some possible socking/block evasion going on regarding users of that IP, so at least anyone landing on that talk page will know that it is/was blocked. You'll also notice that I researched and added the 'Shared IP' template. Nevertheless, thanks for your concern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog is deliberate - this should be obvious because all other requests are handled punctually. There is absolutely no urgency for reviewers because there isn't anything for them to do yet. Wikipedia already has over 5,000 users with the reviewer flag already, and what their role will in fact be is still not decided, and unlikely to be before the end of the year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 01:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey Kudpung. So, I've received three different emails (generally from people who were around during the start of WP:CVUA) suggesting that I put in an RFA. While I would find The Tools™ useful in what I do, I just don't think I'm ready at all (though, I have some serious self-worth issues that I'm working to fix). As someone who has generally been around the same places, but that I don't feel like I have a close, personal relationship with, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to look through my contributions and assess my chances at RFA. I think I can be useful, but I don't want "another premature CVUA RFA", as it were. If you have time, I'd really appreciate a 100% honest and open review of my chances at RFA. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've definitely already read WP:RFAADVICE, as well as just about every WP:OMGWTFBBQ TLA out there. In fact, and I don't know if this says something good or bad about me, I think I read just about every policy, guideline, and well-supported essay that there was before I registered and started seriously contributing. My biggest downside, I feel, is that I haven't created any articles, at all. My content work has focused on Portals (where I brought Portal:New England up to featured from the shell it once was and am currently working to recreate Portal:Nazi Germany after the old version was MFD'd for being far too pro-Nazi) and fixing the holes in the content we already have. I understand, and recognize and accept, that I'm never going to be the Article-writing type; I do maintenance, and some of it, fairly important maintenance. Thanks for looking into this for me. And please, feel free to take your time and do it whenever you get around to it. I'm asking you for a favor, and I have no pretension that might suggest that my wants are more important than the things you need to do. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout02:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does wikipedia have this rule?
I desperately need confirmed status on my account. I cannot wait 4 days for autoconfirmation. I am being denied on the basis that my article isn't finished yet. I do not understand this. Can you please explain to me what the reasoning is behind such a rule? I am new to wikipedia, and I understand that there are rules, but why a rule that insists that I complete the text portion of an article before I can upload images? Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed#User:C_Coligniero Why can't I do the article one portion at a time? --C Coligniero (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is not a protected title, you can complete this article at any time without out waiting to be confirmed. You will need to wait until you are confirmed before uploading images. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much guys, this info is very helpful. The article isn't even half-way done yet. It's just that I am at a point where I'd like to upload some images, and don't really want to be glued down for four days. I am very new to wikipedia and don't know the ropes around here yet, so thank you both very much for pointing me in the right direction. I really appreciate it. --C Coligniero (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
Hey all :).
We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.
However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.
I am wondering why you deleted the AMRAP Nutrition page.
Please tell me how it appeared to be promotional / advertising as I trust your opinion and respect your concern for keeping garbage out of Wikipedia. However this company is doing good things and I am one of many that think we should support them.
Kindly review their Facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/AMRAPnutrition ) and please let me know your final thoughts as I will respect and support them.
Hi. I cannot connect to the FaceBook page because I do not have an account there. Also, a FaceBook page is not a reference of importance that asserts notability for Wikipedia articles. The article was deleted because the content read like a social networking or directory entry, with promotional text and links. Companies must satisfy our criteria at WP:ORG - that means that their significance must be supported by multiple independent third-party sources such as dedicated articles in the established press. I'm afraid that AMRAP Nutrition will probably not be able to meet these requirements. For more information please see the notice on the creator's page at User talk:IHeartAutumnVT. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kudpung, I assume you noted my user page as unreadable for one of two reasons: 1) the colours hurt your eyes, or 2) it doesn't render properly in your browser. I wanted to note that I have no emotional attachment to any aspect of it, but also that there is a thought process here.
As far as the colours go, I understand that they are not the standard on Wikipedia, but they exist in that form for a reason. If you spend any time using a command line or text-based operating system, you know that such software is almost always distributed with black backgrounds and non-white text. This is because people who spend excessive amounts of time looking at text on computer screens usually find (if they have given it a good shot) that such a colour scheme tends to keep the eyes from getting tired. If you note the image to the right, that is what my user page looks like in a text-based environment. I did not choose those colours, that is how the software is distributed. I would be happy to change the colours, I just chose those because it is what I am used to seeing elsewhere. I have never had anyone come to me (in person or on Wikipedia) to say that they could not read my user page, but that does not mean there aren't people out there who can't (triple negative!).
With respect to rendering, I do look at my user page in modern and ancient browsers, and have only seen it not render properly with software that can't render the rest of Wikipedia anyway. Do you have a problem seeing it?
In short, I would change it without strife if someone could provide a credible reason for it. I would appreciate your thoughts. hajatvrc @07:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker). I had a look. It loads fine, but it is virtually unreadable. There is insufficient contrast between the black background and the dark purple and blue coloured text. Your user page is where other editors can find out more about you, and to a certain extent is how you choose to present yourself here. No one will bother to find out more with a page that looks like that. I had to highlight all the text just to be able to read it easily, and it runs the risk of implying to others (rightly or wrongly) that you put a low priority on communicating clearly and a high priority on looking "cool". Just a bit of advice. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess my eyes must be weird, because it is much easier for me to read that than black-on-white, especially for long periods of time. I don't have time to fool with it at the moment, but I will figure something out. I've had it that way for three years, go figure. hajatvrc @09:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A. An opinion piece, essay, or academic dissertation (which according to the author it is) with some supporting print references that can neither be easily verified nor checked for copyvio. Just because an article is referenced does not mean it is suitable for inclusion - all academic theses have footnotes. Wikipedia is not a place for simply publishing original research - whether acaademic or not, and with or without footnotes. That's my take on it. If it were an article in an established peer reviewed journal, a Wikipedia piece on Thai history could reference to it as a source, but in my opinion, that's as far as it goes. The deleted stub by the same author started off in the same tone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while.
Hi, Kudpung! It's a been a while since we talked, but I just had a question about WP:NPP that I thought you'd be more than fit to answer. In instances like this, I end up having an edit conflict/such with one of the copyright bots -- which I am unaware of until after saving the page, because of the way Twinkle processes CSD tagging. My question for you is: Is my tagging completely redundant (and should be reverted, trouted, and thrown into a large cage), or... not? Thanks, Theopolisme13:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly OK. However, you might wish to follow up on the Duplication Detector report and decide whether the entire article should be CSD'd or whether you can attempt a quick clean up. (Hint: settlements are rarely deleted if they are provene, with or without refs, to exist). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
article about Jason Shulman
Hello Kudpung,
Thank you for your comments in response to my question about the article on Jason Shulman. I'm new to Wiki, so your comments were very helpful.
I wondered if I could check something with you...
I had believed that the following establishes Rev Shulman’s notability:
The books he has authored (very impressive list in bibliography - coauthor of book with Isaac Asimov; his most recent book was in the Amazon bestseller list etc)
His music for theatre, advertising and spiritual music (listed in discography)
Being the founder and head of a growing organisation with students from around the world
Creating a new body of spiritual work that brings together Judaic and Buddhist thought
I'd be grateful for any thoughts you could offer on how I could build my case based on these facts...?
Thank you once again for taking the time to write and give me feedback.
Hi. Unfortunately there's nothing I can do to help you here. The article was deleted because there was no explanation of the subject's significance for a real person. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the comments on your talk page. Such an article must be referenced to third-party independent sources, such as articles about him in established newspapers, magazines, or peer reviewed journals. A list of books he has written is not enough. If you can find such references, you can create the article again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NYU-Poly page
Hi Kudpung, some users(most probably sock puppets) keep deleting my message for in NYU-Poly's talk page.
It appears you have now been blocked for edit warring and suspected sockpuppetry. I won't comment on editors' participation on the talk page because I'm only concerned with keeping the article free of disruption and violations of policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
article about Jason Shulman
Hi Kudpung,
Thank you once again for this very helpful feedback. May I run a quick question by you: Two well-known books about healing have dedicated an entire chapter each to Shulman and his teachings. The authors had no personal connection to him, so they are independent sources. Further: comments/blurbs for his books came from highly respected folk - Stephen Covey, Lama Surya Das, Carolyn Myss etc. Would these help in establishing notability? Thank you once again for your time and kind assistance. Sharadha (Sharadha Bain (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Kudpung,
Thank you for pointing me to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I will check there. You've been very kind indeed. Thank you for all the feedback and guidance. Sharadha (Sharadha Bain (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
What exactly is the point of trying to engage him on his talk page when he wouldn't listen to anyone else and has already made it clear he won't listen to me? But if you insist, next time I will. AutomaticStrikeout19:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the message I have just left on his tp. Running to Aunty ANI each time a user picks his nose doesn't help. The other point - which he succinctly made in his comments at WT:NPP - also reflects several comments by others around the site that since the new cool patrolling tool went live, there are a lot of users working there now who appear to believe that reading through the tutorial at WP:NPP isn't necessary. I've been campaigning for years to get NPP improved, and although the Foundation refuses to acknowledge the core problems, they have at least given us the new patrolling interface, but I did warn about what a magnet it would be to new or less experienced users. What will happen ultimately is that page patrolling will be made into a user right and because of its special nature, the right will need one heck of a lot more clue than Rollbacker or Reviewer. Help us to get it working smoothly so we don't have to resort to that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't even use that new feed, I prefer the old style. Also, when someone is as repeatedly rude as Fjozk has been and ignores it when a simple solution is offered, I really don't feel as inclined to care if their argument was valid. AutomaticStrikeout20:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which of course for anyone wanting to be regarded as a skilled Wikipedia 'policeman' is exactly the wrong end of the street to start firing parking tickets from. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so but I'm a no-nonsense person. I'll just have to try and be more patient, although I do think Fjozk deserved to be taken to ANI. I wasn't the only person he was treating like an animal. AutomaticStrikeout20:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I am completely aware that patrolling from the NPP backlog is what's recommended, and I try to. However in this case I was looking at "new editors contribs" under recent changes. I saw a mistake, fixed it, and when Fjozk came to my talk page I politely apologized, I explained how to resolve an edit conflict, I thanked him for his contributions, and asked him to come by if he had further questions. I assumed good faith. It was an honest mistake, one that I now am more careful about, and I just don't see why this has gotten so overblown. It was a single apostrophe. If people can get this riled up about an apostrophe, then I give up. GoPhightins!20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I was just commenting at the NPP talk page discussion where not only this user, but several others expressed a significant degree of disdain towards an honest mistake. And I can read between the lines on that last part :). Thanks Dennis--GoPhightins!20:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you (Dennis) should get a block similar to the one you gave Dr. Blofield, except this one would be for being a voice of reason instead of getting all worked up. In all seriousness, thanks to both you and Kudpung. AutomaticStrikeout20:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Wow, tryin' to get a word in edgways on my own tp ;) Well 'ere it is: :I agree entirely that this whole thing has been blown up out of proportion. See the conversation above with AutomaticStrikeout. The message going round the site at the moment is that the same signatures keep appearing on messages at ANI whether as plaintiffs or as uninvolved commentators. The only names that should be seen there with any regularity are those of the admins - and I'm sure you can figure out why that is. As for NPP, yes, it is indeed recommended to work from the back of the queue, but paradoxically those articles are the hardest to patrol because they are the ones that the newbs and kids have left after going for the low hanging fruit at the front of the queue. I would prefer to see the less experienced patrollers doing just that: leaving the tough pages for the experts to deal with. Almost everyone agrees that the real priority is at the front of the queue because that's where the hoax, attack, vandal, and copyvio pages are easily identified, and very quickly deleted. Fjozk made some very valid points in his posts at WT:NPP - do check out the entire thread because he's got the picture perfectly, it's just a shame he has a caustic way of commenting. As regards to incivility, if Arbcom won't block serial offenders, how do you expect us mere admins to risk our reputations (and perhaps our tools) for blocking anyone for something less? The best way to handle people like that is to ignore them. It usually works. Once you know your stuff really well at NPP, you can help us patrol the patrollers and correct the mess they make. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about the edit conflicts. I probably caused them cuz I kept trying to save my edit and kept getting a notice about a server error. I think the server problem had been resolved, and I just needed to cancel the edit, re-load and try again. Sorry about that. I'm still gonna through the server under the bus anyway. AutomaticStrikeout21:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Breast Cancer Awareness
I don't take it upon myself to fix the world very often, but this article is seriously harmful. It needs to be completely scrapped and re-written or deleted altogether. I am very willing to work with somebody to re-write this article. If nobody else will, I would like to re-write the article myself. I will make it objective, have appropriate information, have good sources, etc (obviously different from the message I put on it). Please help me with this. I will speak to whoever I need to and put in as many complaints directly to Jimmy Wales's inbox as it takes if I have to (obviously a joke).
I am sorry if this comes off arrogant or generally crazy, but this article is not just a poor article - it is a problem. It is harmful for it to be visible to the public, and it is not appropriate for the purposes of wikipedia.
I just received notice about the deletion of the page I made. I saw your notes, "subject not important" to put in an encyclopedia.
My ambition to start this page is well Im an American student studying my masters in Norway at BI Norwegian Business School.
The Alumni Association here enables students to meet with past alumni, to speak about jobs, mentoring, networking things like that.
I did my undergrad in the US, and the day I graduated I received an email from the alumni department at my school asking for donations..
WHY i made this page is, well i think this is one hell of a vision, instead of asking for money, they operate solely on funding from school, to benefit their former and current students. The closeness of the university to its former students is fantastic, their cooperation and everything is like nothing i have seen before, because it is a program that reaches out rather, asks for funding.
I know alumni isnt the hottest of topics. But there is a page for Texas Tech Alumni Association, so i though that mine would be applicable and even more relevant.
Please, could you assist me with recommendations, or help me get this posted.
Hi. I understand that you would like a page for your organisation, but unfortunately it does not meet our criteria for inclusion for companies, organisations, clubs, and groups of people. There must be reliable independent third-party sources about it such as newspaper articles that assert its notability. PLease see WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't I added copyvio-revdel to two articles. One was deleted, but on the other the creator removed the tag, it's Magda Stavinschi. However they added back a large amount of copyrighted text so I've tagged it under CSD G12. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The actual copyvios appear to be isolated phrase that can't easily be paraphrased. I would clean it up but I don't have time. I would let another patrolling admin decide what to do. It will probably be deleted but don't take offense if s/he decides against deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes (now that I have searched for it). It was deleted twice, each time by a different administrator. Wikipedia is not a company listing site. This company made no claims of significance or importance for an encyclopedic article. Please review the messages on your talk page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think you'll agree that Sony and Microsoft are in a different league and that thousands of newspaper reports have been produced about them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Completely agree. I just thought the Largest UK Distributor of pro audio and sound equipment might deserve one too. Anyway I shall give up. Thanks again for your info WillyDonker (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
“A HIGH-TECH company which supplies equipment that enabled billions to watch the Royal Wedding live is set to expand after increasing exports by 38 per cent.”
As you can see canford is a company with another UK site at the far end of the country, and with offices in France Dubai and Germany.
If these sources are not enough then i am happy to admit defeat.
Well done Willy! There's no doubt the company is notable. I have restored the article to your user sub page at User:WillyDonker/Canford Audio PLC where you can work on it and expand it in peace and add all that great info and the references. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Let me know when it's ready and I'll check it over and move it back to mainspace. BTW: Check exactly what you flip for a living ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Top class Admin. Listens to all points fairly even from a wiki newbie like me. Provides a informative and enjoyable start to wiki-ing. I think Im hooked already. Thank you! WillyDonker (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there have been four warnings on this user's page since last month when we attempted an ANI report. Is there anything we can do at this point? RFC/U? Elizium23 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's delicate because what we have here is not vandalism. Part of me 2 really believes that their edits are constructive - they are cetainly not vandalism even if they are largely disruptive and hence I would regret having to impose a block, at least just yet. I think probably one solution would be to insist on an adoption programme. Much depends on how such a message on their talk page is worded and because I think this is a young user, our standard elocution may be too formal and intimidating. It remains to be seen however if there would be any reaction to such a suggestion on their talk page. If not , then it should be the subject of (yet another) discussion at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any reaction at all would be great. As it stands, this user has never used a talk page, in nearly 1500 edits logged. The user does not appear to have email enabled, so there is essentially no way of contacting him that will work. Good luck with that. Elizium23 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belton Standpipe (Belton, South Carolina), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I am kinda at a loss, I've re-read the documentation here Template:Non-administrator observation as you suggested and I don't see what that documentation has anything to do with the amount of edits made. You made another comment a while back here which is more confusing, which comment do stand behind ? this one or this one. An editor pinged me in IRC and was upset because they thought they got me in trouble after seeing your comment (today) as they were the one that pointed me to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator#User:Titodutta, I assured them they had nothing to do with your comment. After thinking about this awhile your comment might have been placed as "a truly friendly reminder" but frankly I think it's caused more problems than it apparently meant to save. WP:PERM are project pages not owned by anyone, I don't see how my 600+ edits there has anything to do with you or WP:PERM. Please point me to some solid policy to the contrary and we can continue this discussion, if not you please cease and desist. Cheers. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already apologised once, and there is obviously no risk whatsoever of anyone being sanctioned for posting on those pages. I do have a clear agenda there though: to discourage newbies and wannabe admins from from believing that contributing there may be a step towards recognition for RfA, and without an nao it might confuse users that the decision has been made by an admin. You may recall that just a while back before the CVUA was revamped, there was a huge spate of unnecessary clerking and non-admin decision making. That obviously does not apply to you when commenting there. As far as I understand, and as documented, '...but is not in the position to make any actions.' Perhaps I'm interpreting that too literally. Nevertheless, it would be nice if you could keep your comments on the same friendly terms that I employ - we both genuinely have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this whole Wikipedia community so so much! I was seriously taking decisions to retire from Wikipedia, but my heart stopped me from doing so. How are you, anyways? @DipankanUpgraded!Tag me!07:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really need admin intervention, just a gentle touch. The article talk page is the best place for a discussion before trying to revert the move and that's where you can perhaps prove what the right page name should be. I've left a message here to start the ball rolling, perhaps you can get the talk page going. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused on both counts. When I attempted to move the page back, I got a message stating that the move had to be done by an administrator. As for discussion, the time for that was before the move. I'm trying to follow BRD here. The page was boldly moved, now I intend to revert, and then I'd be happy to engage in discusssion. If the page can be moved back by a lowly user, please tell me what I did wrong, and I'll move it back myself. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you tried you do unless you attempted a cut&paste move, there's nothing in the log. That said, any BRD has already been done by the first mover. Now is the time for the discussion already. What you do is up to you, but if you want to move it without discussion, do use the move tool, it will automatically leave a redirect. The page is not protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page was moved without any prior discussion. I disagree that discussion is required before reverting to the long-standing version. The user boldly moved, I reverted, and now it should be discussed. Again, I have no doubt that the user's intentions were good, and discussion is of course always a good thing. But what you seem to be proposing is BDR, rather than BRD. In any case, the more I try to fix it, the more it's getting messed up. I absolutely did not do a cut-and-paste move, but it's entirely possible that I erred in some other way. If you could move the page back to its long-standing version, I would appreciate it. I'm afraid to keep messing with it. I moved it to "A Picture is Worth a 1000 Bucks", but I'm still unable to get it back to its original title: "A Picture is Worth a 1,000 Bucks" (the only difference being "1000" and "1,000"). By the way, the user who originally moved it has not responded to your comment on his talk page. Thanks in advance, and sorry for creating such a mess. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you username-block this one? There is gross self-promotion going on and I was about to prepare a note for COI/N and to ask MichaelQSchmidt (talk) whether any of these films were notable; Jordanalan may end up blocked for advertising (though, as we don't tell new users what WP is not for, it would be only fair to warn him first), but I don't see a problem with him using his own name. There was an earlier account Jordanalan00 (talk) but that has not edited since February so there isn't really a sock problem.
To illustrate the degree of self-promotion, I reverted here edits to one of his film articles which altered sourced statements that the film "was panned by the critics" and was "a box-office flop" to say, without sources, that it "garnered rave reviews" and "went on to unprecedented success"!
Aha, I understand - I hadn't seen his post to RFPERM. I will carry on sorting out all the promotional edits and see what if anything should be saved. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I faring well at New Page Patrolling?
Hello Kudpung. Can you please review my recent patrolling actions and tell me if I am doing good there. If that area is clean I will focus on working on patrolling of new pages. Thanking you, Dipankan001. @DipankanUpgraded!Tag me!06:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung! I would like to soon create articles Osoyoos Times and Oliver Chronicle, but am afraid it wouldn't pass WP:GNG. They are city newspapers, and i find some newpaper articles on the Osoyoos Times, including one by CBC News. May I ask for your input? Thanks so much, TBrandley00:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm never optimistic about small local newspapers passing GNG. The CBS news source make the Osoyoos Times 'famous' for one event only, and the Oliver Chronicle website is down due to having been hacked. Best thing to do is to look at Wikipedia articles about any small town newspapers and rate your chnaces. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at WP:PERM/C. Message added 09:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
