User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2012

Fauré and others

Thank you for your kind remarks about my Fauré piano music article. As no good deed goes unpunished, I wonder I can interest you in the current peer review of Charles Villiers Stanford whose article I have in absence of mind built up into something that has a possible look of FA about it. Quite understand if you're not interested, but any comments will be gratefully received. Happy new year! Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to Tim, but don't be surprised if I am unable to make any suggestions for improvement ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Rahulmothiya's talk page.
Message added 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Buddha Putra - Rahul (Talk) 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Breedlove

There are constant SPA's voting on this debate, majority of them unregistered/non-autoconfirmed. Would semi-protecting this debate be necessary? --Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. In the meantime, feel free to put the SPA tag on them if you are sure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No need. It's slowed down a lot since I placed the message on the talk page earlier today. The closing admin won't count those votes anyway. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 14:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi Kudpung, just doing a spot of NPP'ing and came across Smith Wildman and Jennie (Hearne) Brookhart House. I can't find any specific guidelines on architectural notability. Do you know if 'registered historic buildings' have any inherent notability? Or is it a case of must satisfy the WP:GNG? Pol430 talk to me 15:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that listed buildings are considered notable, but don't quote me on it. I would personally keep it and slap 'refimprove' tag on it and make sure it has a stub tag and cats. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's an essay here. It's a proposal that didn't get consensus either way (a bit like schools), but it's still a reasonable guideline. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, It's already got a stub tag on it but added refimprove Pol430 talk to me 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Happy new year and we will see you contributing in 2012 of the new year. We are hoping to see and help to make Wikipedia better! Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 22:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year and other

May the next twelve months bring little bronze stars and green circles to many of Wikipedia's articles.

On a different note, I recall you saying that you used a Mac. Well, Thorncrag (talk · contribs) has managed to package the latest version of AWB for Mac. Happy AWB-ing, →Στc. 01:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, Mac needs Wine installing for AWB to work. Wine is not as stable on Mac as is claimed and I'm not about to mess with any of my Macs to find out. That said, I still cannot find any links to a Mac-native version of AWB - can you link me to where you found it? All the best to you as well for 2012. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD

[1] is probably worth going back to. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Hellknows came across the same websites that I did. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Help me get that article published

Instead of constantly speeding deleting it, help me get it published. Reality show winners of notable television shows deserve to have their own articles.MouthlessBobcat (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia decides who deserves to have an article, and it depends on following the rules - that's the downside of being 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit'. If you read the policies you have been linked to, and in additon check what kind of sources are required at WP:RS, and how biographies of living people must be sources in order to assert notability WP:BLP, and then write the article in your own words, you'll do fine. If the article is so important to you, I'm sure you won't mind all the reading. Good luck. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

can you review this

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:MouthlessBobcat/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by MouthlessBobcat (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Please remember to sign your posts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Progressive WOWI-FM Proposed Merger

Good Day! We need a little advice. Recently created the article Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75 to chart the history during those years of a radio station. There is a proposed merger by Neutralhomer to perhaps link it to the current (and different) WOWI-FM article, an existing station. Who decides on a merger and what can we do to try to prevent it? thanks,Davidjbrown321 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can propose a merge at any time. The decision will be made by a consensus reached by the participants in a debate where users can express their views for or against the proposed merge. I have started the debate for you at Talk:Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Might be of interest to you

I've just boldly added a discussion fork to this RfC which might be of interest to you. Pol430 talk to me 15:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. In principle, I think it's an excellent idea and it's one that I already suggested as part of a bundle of NPP reforms that would include NPPers needing a user right, and that commuting the now redundant 'Reviewer' to 'Page Patroller' might be a possible shortcut to the right in order to avoid implementing some new selection process. There are however three main snags: First, the reviewer right was handed out very indiscriminately based on some digital metric rather than experience and/or competency - you just woke up one morning and you saw 'You are now a reviewer!' on your talk page. Yes, NPP is desperately understaffed, and the argument that it's because it doesn't give the operators a hat to wear could be very true; on the other hand there is a huge lobby against it being a right because many would see their unqualified right to tinker with new articles taken away from them. The third reason is that the RfC is simply ill-timed. We're on the verge of publishing the NPP survey I ran two months ago, and its result will have an important impact on how your sub-RfC works out. I just hope the WMF will get the results of my survey out in time before the food drops off your fork. I'll be watching closely, but I'll probably not chime in until I see which way the consensus is going and when I can use the results of the survey as ammunition. All that said, I laud your initiative, and I'm glad it's you who has gone ahead with it - I'm rather trying to slip into the background for a while after having unwittingly been pretty much in the forefront of some major projects over the past few months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You make good points, I hadn't considered the timing aspect. I would support the mass removal of the reviewer flag (including my own) to be granted on an 'evidence of competence' basis, but I didn't want to add that to the proposal in the interests of keeping discussion on the idea in general, rather than who gets a new hat. I anticipate it will come in for some criticism, but hey-ho :) Pol430 talk to me 17:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Guidance for younger editors

Could you please explain the problem with it? Apologies if my initial message was not taken in the spirit it was intendended in, but come on, a template, really? Egg Centric 17:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit wars

Thanks for your intervention on the Bullis Charter School edit war. You might be interested to know that there is a related war on the Los Altos School District page. --Flashcube (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

French article translation

Can you help me tranlsate fr:Prince Punuari'i Teri'itapunui Pomare and fr:Prince Teri'itua Tuavira Joinville Pomare?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only if you find referenced sources for them first. The French Wikipedia is not so strict on sources as we are. If you can find sources that are in French I be happy to check them out. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am no fan of the French articles either because those articles have very few real information outside of dates and names. But they can serve as a basis for some future expansion I plan to do in the future with other similiar articles. I think the main source used were from http://www.royalark.net/Tahiti/tahiti.htm which in turn is largely based on Teuira Henry, John Muggridge Orsmond (1928). Ancient Tahiti. 48. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum and other books provided there. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, althoiugh there are a couple of editors who do nothing else but mass create stubs they have taken from other Wikis, and leave a template inviting other editors to expand and clean them up. I'm not in favour of it. Creating your own articles from scratch, or translating articles that have some substance would gain you a lot of kudos. If you would like an example of the kind of translating that I welcome as a challenge, see Brontë which took me perhaps 100 hours because the French version was in such a mess - and I still got no credit for it although I was expressly asked to do it. Fortunately I don't give a toss for barnstars ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How about fr:Histoire de la Polynésie française? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but at the end of the day, I prefer to pick translation of topics that interest me. 19th century English literature is one of them, Classical Mucic composers is another. But that said, since I have now set myself some meta tasks at Wikipedia and WikiMedia, pure content work is something I do a lot less of these days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok...thanks...--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ben Breedlove

Thanks for putting the SPA tag on Insaneinnixa in WP:Articles for deletion/Ben Breedlove. I decided I would let it pass as there is one other edit on another subject, so gave them the benefit of the doubt. I personally think the debate has got out of hand and pity the poor admin who has to agree on the consensus, so I've told everyone to take it to my talk page. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

my response to you

my response tp you on editor assistance, please respond here not there.

dhi kudpung. if this page is the wrong forum for this then why are you continuing to discuss it here, and not in some more appropriate forum? also the discussion was done and i thought it was over until you updated this AND notified me of this on my talk page which means i should respond right? i asked a simple question here and its only because toddsp1 decided to bring the dispute to this page that it continued here at all. i also dont like your accusation that the majority of my edits are complains about other editors. according to [2] more than half of my edits are to articles. only in the past few days have i even gone into this area of wikipedia where users seem to interact more. the same cant be said of you [3], so if youre going to tell someone to build articles, maybe it should be someone who has less article edits percentage than you? im sorry but your response seems to ill-enformed and inflammatory that i had to respond to it. please let this all stop now. i am going to copy this to your talk page please respond there since as you say this is not the appropriate place for this discussion. Bouket (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of your edits (I've checked them all), including the one above, are either inflammatory or messing with the workings of Wikipedia in areas you don't understand yet. With only 200 edits, you still have a lot to learn about Wikipedia, and it seems that you you still haven't even learned to take advice. Please really start taking some advice now, and if you want to foster good relations here, stop telling me, other admins, and other editors what to do or how to behave. Start assuming good faith, read the Five pillars, read WP:BOOMERANG, and understand that trying to get the last word all the time won't help - remember what Drmies said about digging your self in deeper. I'm an univolved observer and a regular helper at WP:EAR - and I'm asking you to now to read THIS too, and give it a rest. If you would like some advice or help anytime on contributing to articles, don't hesitate to ask me here - I don't bite newbies ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

i was already planning to drop the issue until you brought it up. and if you ask me you seem like you are biting now. and if you take offense at that its your problem not mine since someone with genuine nice feelings would try harder to not bite and not get angry. i get the message that trying to help aditya out in the ani was a bad idea. thanks. Bouket (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The only problem I sometimes have is getting people to take good and well meant advice. I most certainly will start biting if you won't read all the advice pages you've been linked to - and here's another. Please read my talk page notice too! - and this if it fits the case. If you want help editing article pages at any time, or understanding policies, my offer still stands, I'm actually rather good at it ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

you are sending mixed messages. your response says 'last comment from me' but in the comment you say i can ask you for help understanding policies. i kept trying to give this issue a rest because im sick of it. i was just trying to help someone out who i thought was right in complaining about getting a warning when the other user involved in the edit war did not get a warning. even though maybe i dont know everything it looks like if i didnt say anything at ani then we wouldnt have understood why the user thought there was bias. so i think i did ok thanks. im done with all this ridiculous stuff and will not go into talk pages anymore and wont edit except for stuff im researching. if i broke any policies at ani that toddst1 didnt also break by bringing up the issue many times after i said i was done then tell me what. you even responded to the EAR thing even though i said not to respond there, and all you said was that you werent going to respond there. can you really not understand how this seems combatative? Bouket (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In the time since my previous post you can't possibly have read the pages you were linked to. I feel now that I have done all I can to help you for the time being, and if you would like any further assistance please don't come back here until you have done some serious reading. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

i wont. can i ask you to please not get involved in a discussion that has been done for 2.5 hours and restarting arguments in the wrong venue like you did here [4]? see WP:HORSEMEAT and trying to also WP:AGF that someone might be doing something to help someone they feel is being attacked. thanks. dont respond to this and i wont have to respond to you. Bouket (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at User talk:Jasper Deng/Permissions.
Message added 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't consider myself ready. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

To be honest, even figuring out how to respond to you was not easy for me. I appreciate very much your help and direction. I want to be a contributing member here and not just a one issue person. It just happens that this particular issue, Ben's page, is something that I am devoting everything I can to..I believe in it, and in what has happened because of him. I truly do not mean to be disrespectful to other members, but find that I see room for interpretation in many policies and...I'm finding that I have a problem with the jabs flying around. I hear what you are saying about the page not being the place to argue about the policies...but that seems to get folded into things when people can look at the very same words and see different things. I am not ashamed to say that I am literally praying that this page does not get deleted. There was a huge impact here and I did take the time to read approximately 600-800 messages left to Ben on places like Legacy.om and on his Breedlove tv channel. It is not cliche stuff; it is real, poignant, and in many cases very specific examples of how he changed their lives. To me, it is also noteworthy when thousands of teenagers risk peer judgement to leave such messages. This is a phenomenon that happens to fall within the category of something making things better. I hope that has a place in cultural history at Wikipedia. As for navigating through this new world here at Wikipedia...I'm more confused than I have ever been. That in itself is enough to make a person a one issue member, but I am going to keep trying. Again, thank you for your polite and kind way of trying to educate someone like me...who probably seems like a freakish hot mess. TinaPetersontinam (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tina. With all due respect for the deceased, I have no personal interest in the topic, and having remained strictly neutral, I may even be the administrator who chooses to assess and pronounce the consensus when the 7 days have run their course (a challenge indeed, because it is one of the longest and most complex debates of its kind). I understand your concern for all the rules we have around here; there are in fact around 5,000 pages of them including their various essays that discuss and produce them. Wikipedia has indeed become a huge bureaucracy over the years, and it isn't helped by all the newcomers (no disrepect to yourself) who launch into meta areas and try to change things unilaterally in ignorance of the mechanisms that exist for bringing change about. That said, the rules for creating and contributing to articles are fairly simple, and there are plenty of help desks and experienced people who can be of assistance. Let the rules and regulations not daunt your enthusiasm - if you want to shortcut the advice pages your are most welcome to come to my talk page anytime, as many do, and I look very much forward to seeing your future contributions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please consider that if it is the longest and most complex debates of its kind as you said, that alone might make the subject something that should be kept. Even if temporarily to review again at a later date. I understand what you are saying about newcomers, I really do. But please understand that as someone like me tries to put input on a deletion discussion page...and in good faith tries to follow all the written guidelines for that...we don't know the mistakes we are making until they are pointed out. Please understand that someone like me is not trying to wreak havok on Wikipedia, but really trying to do what I understood to be the proper way of trying to stop a page from deletion. As with any debate, I understand that emotionally reacting to certain comments is wrong. Thanks. Petersontinam (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tina, I have never suggested for a moment that you are 'wreaking havok'. On the contrary, I quite understand how you feel about this article, and you are fully entitled to express your opinion at the debate. As I mentioned before, when the seven days are up, an uninvolved admin will review the discussion and taking our policies into account will make an objective assessment of the community's consensus. Until then, all we can do is wait. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, please let me clear that up...I didn't mean that you thought I was..I was afraid that I was. I guess that is what is hard about the written word and not seeing someone's face. Petersontinam (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Redundant articles?

Hi Kudpung, I've been patrolling the NP log lately, and I've spotted a several creations of (to me) redundant articles by user Toto le chat. They've been creating articles like 2012 in Romania, 1992 in Russia, 2012 in Moldova and 2012 in Denmark. I don't think what the purposes of these articles are, when there are categories like Category:2012 in Denmark and Category:1992 in Russia; that articles like that cannot be written in prose anyway, and have to be lists, which is essentially the job of categories. What do you think? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh golly! I'm really no expert on lists and cats. Nevertheless you raise a very interesting and probably important point that may have a site-wide impact, and I suggest you (or we) should consider which should be the best venue for it to be discussed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like the right place. Consider posting there the same or a similar message as your one above to me. I'll put it on my watchlist and check in from time to time, and if I understand what is going on, I'll offer a comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:POLA

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:POLA. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Article on John Lautner

I am asking your advice on which places are the most helpful towards my first editing. My deceased Husband's Grandfather was John Lautner.. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/John_Lautner John's daughter Karol is my Mother-in-law and President of the John Lautner Foundation. I am an Advisor on the Board. Karol has mentioned that there are many facts which are not correct in her Dad's article and wishes for me to change them. Of course I am going to read everything I can find here on editing first, but I wondered if you could guide me to the most helpful pages to read. thank you! Petersontinam (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not complicated, simply bear in mind our WP:COI policy, for editing subjects you are connected with and ensure that all important facts are sourced per WP:RS and WP:V. Formatting, style, and citation system you will be able to glean from reviewing the page in edit mode - be sure to read WP:ES and make appropriate edit summaries. I hope this helps and if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, she will be pointing out the incorrect facts to me within the next few days. She is aware that there must be references and sources. I feel silly to say this, but I am nervous about it...Petersontinam (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to be nervous at all. If you prefer to err on the side of caution however, you could consider putting your intended changes in your Sandbox and asking me to review them before you add them to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead with Uncle Mike's date of death. Karol is busy until Sunday due to part of the Lautner exhibit in our neck of the woods ending tomorrow...then she will be able to give it her full attention. I'm not sure if his date of death needed an extra reference? It seems like a fact that wouldn't be a conflict of interest. Also, I did read what you wrote and followed the links. Learned much. Thank you.Petersontinam (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Quality questions

You might also want to ask The Rambling Man, who does much at WP:FLC, to look at the article and comment on it too (and ask him some of the same questions). As to the questions: 1) With over 150 entries, is it viable or necessary to make a table? I do not think it is necessary to have tables. If the list can be split into sections, it may be easier to have tables in the article. 2) Can FUR be used for images of people for whom it is no longer possible to obtain photos? I think so, although I owuld limit the number of fair use images as much as possible. 2) Are referenced extracts of the school register acceptable as RS? I am not 100% sure what the school register is. I assume it is some sort of official document of the school and so I think it would be OK - has it been published? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll bear them in mind and I'll also ask TLM if he would take a quick look. A school register is just a book or a file that records list the joining and leaving dates of each pupil. It's probably all done on computers nowadays. It's not 'public' information per se, but there's no reason why anyone can't ask to peruse it for a good reason. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK< it is a primary source, so I would not make too much of it, but using it as a ref for dates at the school seems OK to me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please see my sandbox?

I just could not figure out how to use reference tools. All I could do was post a link. Also, I don't know if the quotation is too long, so as to be like copying and pasting. Please help!Petersontinam (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I know you don't suffer fools gladly, and I know I am smack dab in the middle of the fool category right now, but when you get a chance later I hope you can help me in my sandbox...which is ironically about the age I feel right now I am so confused. thanksPetersontinam (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so self disparaging! I will certainly take a look later today when I have had my breakfast and gone through my overnight watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is tuff stuff for a newcomer. There is etiquette here that is unknown..until you mess up...and ways to enter information that are truly difficult and very foreign to me. I'm having a hard time with it. What is also tough is perusing many talk pages (while trying to learn technical info) and seeing so many nasty arguments and vicious comments. I have read things from newcomers who high-tailed it out of here, quickly, because it was not worth the agony. You can see how intimidating that is, right? It doesn't seem isolated. From the many comments I have seen, it is scary to even ask a question and I'm not usually that way. Thin skinned, yes, but usually never afraid to ask a question in order to learn. Petersontinam (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(Follow all the blue links) Well, you can be assured that I am one of the most friendly and helpful people around here ;) unless of course I have to deal with really recalcitrant newcomers who after a short while appear to be here exclusively to vandalise, disrupt, promote themselves or their business, push personal opinions, or are always nasty. Such people invariably end up getting blocked. 'Tis true, there is an awful lot of incivility here, even from mature people with PhDs (they may be some of the worst!). A well known Internet phenomenon is that the anonymity it affords brings out the alter-ego in people à la Jekyll and Hyde. Some of them would appear to be plainly misanthropist; some are persistently unpleasant in the way they go about their work here, while they excel in other areas of the encyclopedia. Yes, Wikipedia civility is a very serious issue; many of those who complain about it appear to be ones who look for every instance of possible incivility or personal attack in everything they read. They usually end up with a piece of wood at their feet. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Had to look up recalcitrant...Read the Internet Civility article, very true and interesting. Ironically, some of the comments left underneath it pretty much underscored the topic. I agree that anonymity gives some false shield where people say things they would never say in person. Another thing about posts and the written word is that you cannot see expressions on someone's face or hear a tone in their voice. You can write something thinking you have been clear in your meaning and intention, but the exact words may not come across to all as they were in your head. Better to be very careful, Something I find myself in the middle of is when I think someone is being very mean, my chastising gets too intense...not sure which is worse. ThanksPetersontinam (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon

Hi Kudpung,

Thanks for your speedy response to my query regarding Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon.
You may be aware that although King Henry VIII had only one recognised illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, he had a number of others such as John Perrot and Thomas Stukley. The conjectural circumstantial evidence of these two is shaky. With Francis Hastings there is a passing reference that his mother was a mistress of Henry VIII but no further contemporary suggestion that he was an illegitimate son of Henry VIII.
My contribution is merely a collection of various pieces of facts available from numerous sources on the internet that there is a far stronger case to include Francis Hastings than indeed John Perrot and Thomas Stukley whose claims are largely circumstantial.
I include my article again for you to consider my case that Francis should be given the same status historically as an alleged illegitimate son of King Henry VIII as John Perrot and Thomas Stuckely. My hope is to use Wikipedia as a medium to engage in an academic debate into the parentage of Francis Hastings.
BTW, I am going to Malvern this weekend!
Regards
John
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstephengeorge (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi John. I am not an expert on nobility and it is not my subject area, hence the reason why I have appealed to all the editors concerned to return to the article and, if necessary, restore their edits in a way that complies with policy and formatting guidelines. On that, I will of course be of help where I can. As a further tip, you may wish to call upon the help of the Wikipedia:WikiProject England and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject English Royalty on their project talk pages. There is no need to post the content of an article or your edits in talk page discussions, a simple Wikilink to the article would suffice. You can also create a direct link to a specific edit by going to the Page History of that article, clicking on 'prev' and when the page has loaded, grabbing the URL from your browser's address bar and enclosing it in single square brackets like this: [http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Francis_Hastings,_2nd_Earl_of_Huntingdon&diff=469845396&oldid=469843762], which will give you a [5] in the message text.

Do enjoy your trip to Malvern! Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD

Sorry, I must have forgotten that one. I think I remembered for the other school AfDs I closed. Hut 8.5 13:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 14:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 14:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlize Theron

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Hey there, I wonder if you could give me some feedback on my work. I want to become an admin one day and even though I might not be ready yet it would be nice to get some feedback on how I can improve. PaoloNapolitano 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As always in matter like this, I have replied by email. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
Message added 03:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

We also need to keep an eye on whether the redirect/merge's are fulfilled properly... Beware: enormous workload ahead. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: AfD closure

Hey, sorry for the delay on the response. I'm in the camp of the chunk of people really burned out from this site right now, and it's actually taking a lot of energy to post anything at all here. For the two primary schools, I took into account the responses, or lack thereof, in those AfDs compared to the others. Admittedly I did find it odd since there was like a batch of 20 or so. In hindsight I should have just relisted them; if you insist on redirects for those two then it's alright. Knollwood, on the other hand, I've read a couple times now, and some of the redirect "votes" struck me as redirects in name only; were you to remove the bold text it would read like a delete rationale, and the only other rationale was that we've done that before. Just because something's done one way doesn't necessarily mean it has to be that way for eternity. I can see other admins closing it as a redirect, but that's if you're just reading the bold text. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wizardman. Thanks for getting back to me. I know I'm rather sensitive to school deletion issues, but as I have explained here for the N'th time over the years, although I am the most active coordinator of the schools project, I've no COI with schools other than wishing to adhere to any current guidelines or clearly established precedents until such times as a new precedent demonstrates a clear swing the other way. With KNollwood, I read the result as:

• Epeefleche (Nominator): Half a 'redirect', because although a nomination generally presupposes a 'delete', he clearly accepts 'redirect' per convention as a possible solution.
• Cullen: Clear 'redirect' citing precedent.
• Nytend:Clear 'delete', although the rationale may not possibly be a strong one.
• Carrite:Clear 'redirect' citing precedent.
• Kudpung: Clear 'redirect' citing precedent.

Change the name from my involved vote to that of any other user, and I would still see a close as 'redirect'. The long-standing precedent is documented at WP:OUTCOMES which although an essay, is merely an objective summary of historical facts and ' ...is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy '. We generally understand 'redirect' in this case to mean that rather than deleting the page, the content is blanked and converted to a redirect with a {{R from school}} template, thus keeping the history intact and the page easy to restore if notability is indeed asserted at a later time, without the need for requesting an undeletion.

While Wikipedia is not strictly inclusionist per se, deletion is always recommended as a last resort, and many experienced editors and admins (myself included) recommend uncontentiously redirecting clearly non notable schools anyway without passing through AfD and creating unnecessary bureaucracy. Again, it's even cheaper, for example, than a PROD, and unlikely to be contested as most school articles are created by WP:SPA who never return to the project. Anyone who feels they can later assert notability can undo the redirect.

That said, as one admin to another, I respect your decision entirely on Knollwood, and unless you feel you would like to change it now, based on my interpretation above, I'm perfectly happy to let it rest at that. I will restore the other two and redirect them citing your kind consent here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Wizardman, dropping by, I seeing nothing different in Knollwood School from the others; the consensus was c;early redirect, and redirect is appropriate. This group of articles was almost identical, and I can't see why they would be handled differently. I'm asking you to underlet and redirect, ; I'm not sure why Kudpung is willing to let that one pass. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think something needs to be done

It seems to me that Epeefleche has typed "primary school" into the search box and then sent every single one to AfD without any other actual thought on the matter. There are now 10(?) instances where he has demonstrated that s/he simply pushes articles to AfD without any other thought. I think this move to AfD every primary school is too rushed and there have been too many mistakes. The workload it has created has been insane, and I've only been involved for the last ~45 nominations (I apparently missed the first 105).

I think his/her school related AfD's have to be set aside until someone is prepared to do sections C and D from WP:BEGIN or points 8 and 9 from WP:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What evidence have you got that Epeefleche has not done sections C and D from BEGIN? Fmph (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If s/he had complied with sections C and/or D:

• We would see tagging and/or school article talk page participation in his/her contributions;
• We would see some evidence of rewrites taking place (s/he's done some copyediting today that's showing up in my watchlist, awesome);
• We wouldn't have ridiculous AfD's for obvious high schools and school regions;
• We wouldn't have AfD's for schools with RS's that turn up first when doing google searches for major Australian newspapers (like this).

Basicly, I'm not seeing evidence to suggest s/he has complied with the process and AGF has become too difficult seeing lots of evidence that s/he hasn't. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Danjel, ::The workload is indeed insane. As the most active coordinator of WP:WPSCH, I naturally feel I have to follow what's going on. It's taken up all my Wikitime since Christmas. I think that a programme of mass AfDing schools is totally inadmissible, and is second only to the mass deletions that brought the BLPPROD about to stop it. BLP though had a special issue, some unsourced or nn BLPs were toxic. I think it's a grossly irresponsible waste of editors' time to find a cat, and go through it systematically nominating articles fro deletion. if someone comes across an old nn school and wants it deleted, that's another thing - and they can PROD it where it will procedurally slip away after 7 days if no one raises an objection. being a deletionist is one thing, but actively looking for stuff to mass delete clearly demonstrates an attempt to push a personal point of view, is nothing less than tendentious, and is highly disruptive of the process of building an encyclopedia. The problem is, that it's not just Epeefleche, several others appear to have joined in, and also appear to vote based on their opinions rather than on what is normally done, whichever way they vote. That leads to the inadmissible situation where near identical school article get closed with opposite consensus. School articles are not toxic, so why can't people just leave them alone, and just delete those that are copyvios or blatant promotion for private schools? Or at least send only those to AfD for which there is not a clear answer? Something needs to be done, but if I take the initiative (like I did with RfA reform) people will accuse me of having a vested interest. Perhaps someone should make a list of all those who have been proposing school AfDs over tha last few weeks, list a lot of diffs for closures that they've lost, and take it either to ANI, or some other noticeboard. I think a lot of this was prcipitated by Night of the Big Wind's attempt to push through a school deletionist policy with his attempts to start an RfC after his first mass AfDs failed. I'll see if I can rustle up some ideas from the other school coordinators - we're all admins, so we're supposed to have some clue ;) but let me have your thoughts. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea. I think ANI is the venue though, and I think it has to be done sooner rather than later. I don't think I'm the person to push it (definitely not diplomatic enough), but let me know when it starts. I think it should happen sooner rather than later.

I'll keep an eye on AfD and make sure to vote merge/redirect into every one of the nonnotable primary schools. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't feel necessarily obliged to change any opinions you might have on the policies or precedents themselves; just share the need to get something done about the issue of the mass nominations, but if it helps reinforce a practice that may be worth keeping for want of a better one, or one that may never reach consensus, it might help all round :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung, thanks for drawing my attention to this. I agree with you that actively going around looking for stuff to delete is quite inappropriate. Notability is in reality a rather elastic concept and I don't think it matters at all if there are some primary school articles floating around where the notability is questionable. If in doubt, leave it in. If somebody has gone to the trouble of producing a reasonable article even if the subject is not really all that notable, I think it is wrong to delete it. It's not doing any harm and somebody might find it useful. -- Alarics (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Alarics. Ironically, as you suggest, it is a policy that out policies are not graven in stone. In contrast to what is normally practiced, i.e. the 'redirect' precedent for nn schools, there will of course be some occasions where the community, based on truly compelling arguments will decide otherwise - and I'm sure everyone would be happy with that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I came to your page after seeing your involvement in primary school related AfD's. I became aware of this deletion campaign through the Hong Kong articles that I am following, and I have expressed my opinion in 2 of them (Li Sing Primary School and Kiangsu and Chekiang Primary School), which I think should be kept. I am in general opposed to such deletionist and often indiscriminate drives. They result in valuable content being deleted: several of the redirects that I have seen for primary school did not result in any part of the content being included into the redirect target article, and that's not appropriate as it leads to the loss of information that some people have taken the time to assemble and that some other people could find useful. I don't know what User:Epeefleche's motivations are, but I know that he/she has been banned 4 times already, including one time for mass sockpupettry. Could it be that the "many other users following him" are not "that many"? olivier (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good points Olivier - thank you for coming here with your input. The content of redirects is not deleted and and be found in the history of the redirect page. Please feel free to merge any usable content into the new parent article; you may wish to create the ==Education== section to accommodate it if there isn't one. 'Not that many'? Hmm... something that had not crossed my mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any time to go through all blanking/redirects and include the valuable content into the target articles. I believe this should be done at the time of the redirection. That's why I am in favor of a "merge" rather than a "blanking/redirect", since it forces the inclusion of material to be ported somewhere where it is visible. Material that appears only in the history of an article turned into a redirect is as good a deleted for most readers of Wikipedia. olivier (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks. On another note, do you think this sent le canard? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't conclude to much from this alone. Such results can appear simply when users have similar interests and end up working on the same projects and articles. olivier (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Some, not all, of these interests seem strangely eclectic - and coincidental? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That could certainly be coincidental. Just look at this and you may be surprised. olivier (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible, but it hadn't struck me as a possibility until it was mentioned. *shrug* ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to interpret the results, but if the final number is anything to go this looks slightly more probable. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Birds of a feather maybe, but probably not ducks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, get a life! Fmph (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's about a dozen...

...AfD's that were closed as delete by Wizardman that might need to be fixed as redirects. Argh. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Links? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

From: WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools/archive:

• WP:Articles_for_deletion/John_Rankin_Junior_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Abbotsbury_Primary_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Albert_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Reaside_Junior_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Ryders_Green_Primary_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Topcliffe_Primary_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Telok_Kurau_Primary_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/St._Christopher's_International_Primary_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Charlton_Kings_Infants'_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Charlton_Kings_Junior_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Forest_View_Primary_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chennestone_Primary_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Cleves_School,_Weybridge
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/The_Edward_Richardson_Community_Primary_School
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Ching_Shin_Elementary_and_Junior_High_School_and_Kindergarten
• WP:Articles_for_deletion/Knollwood_Christian_School

OK, I lied. There's 17 of them that should have been redirects. Seems like Wizardman was in a bit of a mood or something. Should we recreate them as redirects? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Those I all stand behind, and there's no question in my mind that they should stay deleted. Any that I went a bit overboard on Kudpung already brought to my attention, and have been taken care of. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, not questioning that. But they should have been redirected to their localities and an education section created. Among other benefits is the fact that it'll prevent the articles being recreated and then sent back to AfD. :) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung has notified me of this discussion. I'm afraid any assistance I can provide will be limited due to high levels of work bogging me down for the next three weeks. I'm concerned that taking it to ANI could turn into a drama fest, but if these mass nominations go on and on something may have to be done. CT Cooper · talk 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish to recuse myself now on anything further concerning Wizardman's closures. I'm satisfied with his responses to my original enquiry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wizardman, why did you close these as deletes, instead of redirects/merges? I'm coming back to this after a little break from the topic., and I admit to being horrified how things are developing. I do not see how any of the AfDs offered any evidence that such a redirect or merger would be inappropriate, and it is WP:Deletion policy that such redirected and merges are always preferred to deletion. It surprises me, Kudpung, that you should be content with this; I thin there is an urgent need to restore the material properly. I'm asking ther two of you therefore, how can we resolved it. WM, will you change your closings, and if not, why not. If you do not I am undecided between several alternatives. One is to say they were closed contrary to very clear and unmistakable deletion policy to such a blatant extent that I shall simply revert them as unmistakable errors. ; another is I shall simply add the information to the articles on the localities, giving the attribution to the now deleted material, and let others figure out whether that requires undeletion. The third of course is tot take them to deletion review. Perhaps you can think of a way of avoiding that degree of conflict. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep the faith!

Sorry to see you taking flak for your heroic efforts to fix RfA. The fate of all great reformers in this fallen world. Maybe it would be an idea to announce on RfA talk some target deadlines for your first proposals, if you could agree something with your fellow coordinators? There's probably a lot of us waiting for you to come up with some suggestions, but it kind of seems like its been a long wait! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Schools (X-post Carrite talk)

Hi Carrite. I see perhaps that the idea of an eventual RfC on school notability may not be as dead as I might have though it was. That said, I do think an RfC would have a far greater chance of success if it had a neutral statement, rather than expressing any deletionist/incusionist leanings, rather than attempting by its very syntax, to persuade participants to support a singular point of view. Because I am also very keen to arrive finally at a consensus that I can implement, whichever way the cookie crumbles, I would support and offer as much help as possible - as I did in the beginning with my original example - a neutrally worded proposal that offers the history of the issue, and allows the !voters to make up their own minds, but I may come out with some heavy opposition if this is not to be the case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's more or less the way I feel. I think the current system works extremely well and I suspect when the various alternatives are laid out, the "Grand Compromise" between inclusionism and deletionism implicit in an extremely high bar for elementary schools and and extremely low bar for high schools will be retained. I don't have a dog in the fight, other than I don't like pointless deletionism because I feel it impacts both the content of the encyclopedia and the level of participation of content creators negatively. But if people really want to go to war over the notability of every school article on WP on a case-by-case basis, hey, that would be the new consensus and I'd stand aside and chuckle at the logistical catastrophe that ensues. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Might I add, from the outside looking in and as a newcomer, that the same administrator should not be making the decision on a string of deletions that are related? It could be taken as a questionable and possibly more of an personal opinion than a neutral decsion.Petersontinam (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem. It's not too difficult for an experienced user to evaluate a rough consensus, so their opinion doesn't really get a chance of being expressed. Admins who do a stint on closing AfDs just look at the day's log and work through it. If there happens to be a batch, such as the mass school AfDs that are causing concern, they'll just work through it in the normal way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My dog in the fight is a desire to get this out of AfD. The only real reason for permitting school articles is to give students something to work on, but I think that a truly essential need to recruiting new editors. But I cannot get too excited about elementary schools being deleted, as relatively few editors at that level are really ready to contribute. However, I would get very aroused against any attempt to start deleting high schools, where students can make passable articles. Basically, I no longer giver a damn is a few borderline notable articles get into Wikipedia. They are not a danger There are two dangers we face: one is allowing promotionalism. and the other is discouraging new editors/ I tend to judge other problems in terms of those. The question in constructing rfcs about notability is the attitude of those who truly thing, contrary to policy, that the gng is something which must indispensably be met without exception, and the only place for special rules is restricting it further. Some rules, like athlete, can work that way ; but some like WP:PROF do not. I no longer care much about y what articles we have, for thats just temporary; I care about what contributors wer have, because they're the future. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"talkback"

Hi Kudpung,

do you know why I got this message on my talk page? effeietsanders 11:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake. It should have read → WP:EAR. BTW, your signature redirects to the Dutch Wikipedia. Probably not a good idea ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks :) Yes, it links back there, intentionally. But as you can see, only part of it links to nlwiki, part of it links to my user page here. effeietsanders 14:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Doon School

As you said that top-importance keeps it at forefront, don't you think Doon should be then given one? It is in the line for becoming a GA, after all. And everyday work is being done to improve it. Thanks for your reply. Merlaysamuel (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Doon School is rated by WP:WPSCH as a top priority article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Epeefleche

I'm thinking that Epeefleche has to be taken to WP:ANI now. I think that the recourse has to be that s/he is topicbanned from AfD's relating to schools.

Looking at his contributions, there were extremely small gaps between the nominations that he was making. I strongly doubt that he paid any attention to WP:BEFORE or WP:Guide to deletion#Considerations at all. In particular, and on top of the examples already copiously extant in WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools, there was:

• 1 minute between his nominations for Engadine PS and Middle Harbour PS (the latter of which has generated problems because a google search wasn't conducted to find RS's);
• 2 minutes between his nominations for St. Christopher's International Primary School and SJKC Damansara (the latter of which as generated problems because a claim for notability in the article text wasn't considered);
• 2 minutes between his nominations for Kelson Primary School and St. Joseph's School, Oamaru (because, again, a google search wasn't done that would have showed the school dates back to 1891);

Of special notice, halfway down the page here, it seems that he made 33 nominations in 2½ hours between 0729, Dec. 25 and 0956, Dec. 25. He excels himself again between 1105 and 1112 by making 6 nominations in 7 minutes. With such short gaps between nominations, there is simply no way that he is putting any level of consideration into any of his AfD nominations. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps rather than prosecute a single individual, because a couple of other have also been making multiple schools AfDs too, this should be of a general concern such as misuse of a process and/or disruption to Wikipedia causing a lot of unnecessary waste of other voters' and closers' time for non toxic articles. Before we do anything however, now would be the time to take stock of all the school AfDs since December, and produce the links to the closures and and compare how many have been closed as delet, redirect/merge, keep. The end effect being that it might bring about statistical evidence that proves or disproves the preceedent that apparently exists per WP:OUTCOMES. However, as AN/I and AN are nowadays mainly commandeered by non-admins voicing their 'views', it's likely to degenerate into another fiasco and debate on deletion policies (which would be a RfC venue) without consensus. We need to urgently get some expert opinion on this because at the extreme, it might be a direct case for arbcom. I'm sure there have been other such similar cases of disruption, but having only been an admin for a relatively short time, I would not know how and where they were handled. I'll see what I can do about getting some advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've asked around for some neutral advice. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been following this all along: on individual talk pages, AFDs based around a few regions, and the little bit that has been on WPSCH. On the general front, I can offer a tiny bit of bot help to generate a date-sorted list of school AFDs that have been opened over the past few months, but it'll take human research on how they were closed. On the user-specific front, Danjel, your research is incredibly helpful. I'm not sure if ANI is the right avenue; another direction is WP:RFC/USER. The latter has been considered a weak avenue in the past, I'm not sure if the consensus over the past year is any better. In any case, I support doing so; it's more than just schools that have been hit with many AFDs. tedder (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just took the text from [6] (and every other page from there to Dec. 10) and let my computer grind through the text for a while. There's probably a degree of error because I didn't expend too much energy on it (put in keywords like "school", "academy", "ecole", "sekola" and a couple of others).

Between Dec. 17 and Jan 10 there were 181 school related AfD's started. From among those, these users started AfD's:

B.wilson 1

Cindamuse 1

Dennis Brown 1

Edison 1

JamesBWatson 1

Pit-yacker 1

RadioFan 1

Raymie 1

Sillybillypiggy 1

Sparthorse 1

Zzaffuto118 1

Fmph 2

Night of the Big Wind 2

Ryulong 2

Vanadus 2

Vibhijain 2

Arunsingh16 3

Purplebackpack 6

Epeefleche 151

Here is a graph of the activity showing, as you suggested, spikes in activity just prior to Xmas.

PS, those hours that my old boss forced me to sit in statistics courses finally paid a little bit of dividend. Finally. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done! So it does look fairly conclusive after all. It seems to have dropped off in the last three days, but remains to be seen. Whaht we'll need to get is how they will all of been closed when the current batch reaches its 7 days. I think SW could tweak his AfD stats tool to do that - unless you have an idea.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

...There's probably a degree of error because I didn't expend too much energy on it ... - sounds exactly like what you are accusing your target of, doesn't it? Fmph (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. I'll be honest then and say that my numbers probably underrepresent the true situation. I didn't look for more words than the ones that I already know are translations/synonyms for the word "school", so, who knows? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If the extremely high volume of mass nominations don't repeat themselves, then no action may be necessary. The fact that the spike was done just before Christmas is an aggravating factor, given that many editors will obviously want to do other things in the Christmas period. If it does happen again, then I think WP:ANI may be the only answer, and if that doesn't go anywhere, WP:RFC/U. CT Cooper · talk 09:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

it is also the case that the holiday period -- which in many cases coincides with the ending of the school term--causes stresses in people, and much careless work gets done then. There were several examples of thoughtless conflict about all sorts of things at an/i over the past two pr three weeks. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I..?

Hi, I accidentally marked an edit as a minor edit when I shouldn't have. Is there a proper way that I can change that? I put in two links and I just realised they should not have been marked "minor." Thank you Petersontinam (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries are one of the few things that can't be changed or re-edited (they can only be deleted under very special circumstances). There is almost certainly nothing malicious in what you did, and it's nothing to worry about at all. More important is to provide adequate edit summaries - without going over the top. Sometimes it may be appropriate to do a dummy edit to include a forgotten edit summary, but again, the need is rare. Some ES are added automatically when using tools such as Twinkle and HotCat. I have a tendency to be brief with my ES, and never use them for messaging, but you are welcome to take a look here. See WP:MINOR and WP:ES, and WP:DUMMY for details.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Petersontinam (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

School redirect leaves a mess

Girard, Ohio/Girard Education-Things were fine until I was listing the City that NON-Girard schools were located in..if new schools keep getting added to a City page, I felt it should at least be clear. For some reason, only one school from Niles OH was added, while there are a total of 8 schools in Niles. Also, two Youngstown schools were in the list (Liberty HS and William S Guy), though they would seem to belong within the Youngstown page (article). Help me to understand, please- If schools are being redirected to other pages because of AfD's, wouldn't all of the City's schools go there? Is there a type of overlapping or reconfiguration of school districts that I haven't been able to find? Youngstown reconfigured within their own city, but I can't find where two of their schools would end up in Girard. I can keep going with this, no problem, but I need to know if when a City's schools are being deleted and redirected...does that mean the City also was deleted or just those specific schools off of a page...and if it just those specific schools, then why some and not others? This is far beyond my comprehension. Please look at my edit to Girard/Education and you will see the schools I have omitted (Youngstown) and then please advise. Thank you Petersontinam (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not that complicated. If a school that has never had a Wiki article is not listed, ther's no need to add it unless you feel really obliged to look up and list all the schools in that community.Nobody is simply going to delete a school from an article. The normal practice is to blank the article to be redirected, and turn it into a redirect (there's a button on the tool bar of the edit window)Schools that are redirected should have a mention on the target page (although I must admit, I may have forgotten to do this a couple of times). If the page has been physically deleted (rare), just create the redirect, but you won't be able to see the deleted page to be able to merge anything other than the name. More important is that the redirect page has the {{R from school}} template on it so that it is automatically added to the cat of redirected schools so we can keep a track on them. If a school exists, its almost always possible to find a suitable target: school district (USA), Catholic parish or diocese, or locality where you can add something like 'Among schools in the town/village is XXXXX Primary School.' If the school is already listed on the target page and Wiki-linked or a red link, undo the xxx double square brackets to delink it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying this tongue in cheek, but your first sentence was "it's not that complicated." I read on and my head started spinning... I still do not understand why the Youngstown schools were listed in Girard (before I edited). If they were AfD'd, wouldn't they have been redirected to the City of Younstown's page? That is why I asked about a school being deleted from an article. I think that I am in over my head right now and should stick to something simpler until I learn more. For now, though, I need to either add those two schools back in (should I?) or go put them on the Youngstown page. Remember, a lot of the things you were trying to explain to me I haven't done yet (such as redirect) so after I figure out what to do with Girard, I need to take a step back and learn more basic things. Petersontinam (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Schools in Girard, Ohio should be listed in Girard, Ohio because it is the actual community location of the school. There's no harm in them also being listed in the education section of the Youngstone article but it would be an unnecessary duplication, especially if the school were also listed in Youngstown City School District. Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have the Girard Schools listed in Girard and had also added in that Prospect Elementary School had won the blue ribbon award. But Youngstown schools were there (in Girard) before I started editing. I removed them and planned to put them in Younsgtown. What I am asking is--why were the Youngstown schools in Girard....(because I would think they should be on the Youngstown page). I'm assuming that the McDonald and Niles schools were redirects to Girard, but I had wondered if All schools in Niles should be listed (wondered why some Niles Schools were AfD's, and not others) It just might be too late at night for me to be able to get what I am trying to say across, as my brain is fuzzy. I will try again tomorrow when I have had some sleep. :)Petersontinam (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. The Youngstown and Girard articles were cfeated 2002 by the same editor, User talk:Ram-Manone, perhaps you can ask him - he last edited the encyclopedia in August 2011 so he might still be around. The logical places for a school (in the US) are its immediate community, and the school district article - if it exists. There is no compulsion to create redirects for school articles that have never existed, even if they are listed somewhere. If they did previously exist and they have been physically deleted without leaving a redirect or a red link, then it's not worth bothering about. If there is a red link, clicking on it will tell you if it was deleted, it's up to you then if you want to create a redirect for it, but I think there are more pressing things to do Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You are aware of edit warring by Mewulwe on the East Germany article, so I am requesting that you please assist in arbitrating the discussions at the East Germany article

There is edit warring going on at the East Germany article but also a dispute over whether the term "satellite state" is a biased term to describe East Germany. I and others have compiled a vast array of scholarly sources from German, American, British, Czech and other scholars and records of East Germans' public opinion on East Germany as a state, that collectively claim that East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union, or in the case of East Germans themselves they used an even stronger term, that it was a puppet state. Also, many other articles on former countries use the status text for similar terms such as "client state", "colony", "protectorate", or "puppet state". Anyway, your arbitration of the East Germany article and discussion on the use of the term "satellite state" would be greatly appreciated.--R-41 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I know. I've been watching. I'm not going to get involved in the discussion itself. Rather than block anyone, I've fully protected the page until a proper WP:RfC is organised on the talk page and the broader community can comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a proper decision, still I would like to have a recommendation on what to do to have a wider discussion from more editors and perhaps administrators who are less emotionally involved or attached to the issue. Would Wikipedia:Third Opinion be an appropriate venue? Also, as for the East Germany article, as you have fully protected the page, I am requesting the friendly inclusion by you of the following material within the bolded brackets to be put into the intro on East Germany below the paragraph on the culture of East Germany, the paragraph is based on scholarly sources and does not seem controversial in any way to me at least:

extended content

(The economy of East Germany faced many challenges upon the country's formation, the region had been devastated by the damages of World War II and after the war the Soviet Union had dismantled much of East Germany's industrial capacity by 40 to 45 percent - roughly twice the effect of the damage caused during the war - as the Soviets attempted the transportation of the entire disassembled factories in component-form to be reassembled in the Soviet Union. East Germany's economic productivity was restored by the 1960s, after being integrated into Comecon, the Eastern Bloc's trade system. This recovery was delayed in comparison to West Germany’s economic recovery from the war, that was completed by 1950 due to massive financial assistance by the United States and the United Kingdom in the Marshall Plan. It used a command economy, however this economy went through three major periods of centralization from the 1940s to 1962, decentralization and reform under the leadership of Walter Ulbricht from 1962 to 1970, and recentralization under Erich Honecker from 1970 to 1989 . Its economy’s main products included chemicals, optical products, and machinery.)

--R-41 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand the issues involved and I am completely neutral. I have started the debate for you at Talk:East Germany. This will be a widely publicised Central RfC in order to attract a maximum of comment from all editors including those who are not directly involved with editing the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: Please follow the instructions on the talk page for requests for edits. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

relisting

You earlier relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzur Nu'mani, so you might want be interested in further developments there. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. A good call DGG, but I'm not sure the nominator even follows their watchlist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.- Periyar River.

Hi, Thanks for your assistance on Periyar (river). I'm working on the bring the people involved in the article changes without discussing to the discussing table. Will keep you posted. Pearll's Sun^TALK 07:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung, tasks to do?

Hi Kudpung, Is there a place to go where minor edits and clean-up are needed? Thank you. Petersontinam (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Gosh yes! If you have a good eye for prose, grammar, style and typos, check out the WP:GOCE. You'll need to get reasonably familiar with the WP:MOS first - it's a lot of reading, but we all have to do it. If you do a full sweep of a page, let me know and I'll check it over for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will read first as you suggest. Petersontinam (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Still reading and absorbing. Petersontinam (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Christianity

You closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Christianity by saying keep as a disambiguation page. In my opinion, this was not a consensus at all. While many suggested disambiguation, it was far from everyone, and the correct closing should have been either keep (as is) or no consensus.

When I saw the disambiguation page, I was not aware of the AfD and was disambiguating links. There are a ton of links to Conservative Christianity and having a DAB page there is a big disambiguation problem. So I thought that changing it to an article was one of many items on the Wikipedia to-do list.

I bring this up since this was discussed at Talk:Christian conservatism where most users agreed that disambiguation didn't make sense, and a redirect might work better. I then tried to do the redirect and wound up in an edit war with another user. This other user disagreed with the disambig idea but was reverting to enforce you incorrect AfD close.

Please respond. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The result was 'keep' (as a DAB page). As this means the article/page has not been deleted, editors are free to carry out whatever action they feel necessary if it is reached by consensus decision on the article talk page. Edit warring is not a solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, you're saying that the disambiguation page is not to be considered a binding requirement and we can change it if we like? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That is clearly what I said. Any additional comment by the closing admin is generally a recommendation only. Any AfD closure that is not 'delete' leaves the article free to be redirected, moved, edited, changed to/from a dab page, at will by any editor, preferably with a consensus on the article's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has now appeared at ANI and includes comment on what your above advice meant. Perhaps you might like to add your view? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Gort Na Móna Secondary School

Many thanks for your feedback on my wikipedia page on Gort Na Móna Secondary School. I have made some amendments using Hanley Castle High School as a template as you have suggested. Your feedback is greatly welcomed.

This was my secondary school and prior to this page "google" could find nothing on the Internet. I plan to add more information over the coming weeks.

Again many thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean999diving (talk • contribs) 18:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Tah for the advice

Tah, a few good pointers I shall see if I can edit my app for admin. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you would like some more advice. I actually wrote that essay, but I would be happy to send you my thoughts by email. Let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I thought I processed my admin self nomination, but can't see it in the list of nominated admins. I didn't find the process very simple! Have I done something wrong??? Tah for the help, very kind. :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The point was that quite honestly I don't think the app will get very far. I think you would make a fine admin, but not just yet. You're welcome to go ahead, but some opposition may not be as friendly as mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: If you do go ahead, you'll need to opt in for this thing in order to provide a full breakdown of your edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was actually going to ask you how far you think it will get, and thought that may be the answer! No problems, I appreciate the friendly advice. Is there a point to leaving it in there and trying to learn from what people say, or on the odd chance it may get throught, or better to withdraw the app? Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer that by email. Check your mail in a few moments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't used the email addie that is in the contact, its old. The current email is <redacted> could you re-send? Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Tah, for the email and advice, I've responded Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC) No probs, all part of the learning experience! Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Activated the edit counter - apart from the admin application, these are great stats - will come in handy. Can't see the monthly opt in option.

You've got 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 13:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 13:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The user AndyTheGrump is behaving arrogantly towards me, when I posted a response to one of his posts, he just laughed in my face, writing "LOL! "

As you are the administrator overseeing the Talk:East Germany page, I am informing you that User:AndyTheGrump is behaving arrogantly, in response to a post I made, he responded by laughing at me, writing "LOL!". He went on to arrogantly say "Thank you for providing such convincing evidence that the author of this encyclopaedia agrees with my perspective on the matter." I can't stand it any longer, he is treating me like an animal when I've provided source after source and then he just laughs at me and snarls back at me in a haughty manner "thank you so much for giving me a good argument", he might as well have added insulting me by calling me "you loser" - I am being abused on the talk page for my conscientious efforts - I won't tolerate being treated this way--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Consider taking it to WP:AN/I or WP:WQA if you feel strongly about it. It's got nothing to do with me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Craze/Stub

Dear Kudpung, I would like to expand the stub article on Elizabeth Craze. In my opinion, there is more info to be added. Also, the Children's Cardiomyopathy Foundation will be doing a newsletter on her in the near future with current information. Could you please take a look at this when I have finished? Or, if you think I shouldn't do it, could you please say so? Thanks. Petersontinam (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There's never any need to ask ;) Just go ahead and improve/expand any article you like. Just be sure to reference any contentious or disputable material with reliable sources. Let me know when you have worked on it, and I'd be happy to check over for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Petersontinam (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clara Byrd Baker

Hey there, I'm following up with you regarding your recommendation in the above referenced deletion discussion. The article as initially presented was about a nonnotable elementary school where the article creator removed the PROD. Generally, I am the first person to redirect schools that fail the notability criteria, so my recommendation would have likely been to redirect as standard outcome. However, while working on a separate article, I ran across some information on the namesake of this school, Clara Byrd Baker. When I saw that an article with her name was up for deletion, I was surprised to see that it was about the school. Opting for an alternative choice to deletion, I have made a major revamp to the article to focus on the person, rather than the school. Accordingly, I am requesting that you take a second look at the article to ascertain its viability. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, Cindy. I have changed my vote to 'keep' accordingly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Page deletion

Hello,I'm new to Wikipedia and started building my page (I'm a musician). I got a notification about the deletion of my page yesterday and I did try to link a few of the bands I've played with to my page, but apparently it didn't work.Could you please tell me what to do?Luckily I have the text saved so it's not a big deal. Thank you. Terry Eleftheriou

by the way here's my myspace page myspace.com/warblast

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wargrinder2000 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Terry. Unfortunately, social media sites such as MySpace are not admissible because they are not reliable - yours was written by you. We have no proof for example that you are one of the fastest drummer in Greece, besides which there are other qualities for a good drummer that are more imporan important than speed. To be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, an article must pass some strict criteria. You can read them by clicking on these links: WP:BLP for people, WP:BAND for musicians and bands, WP:RS for reliable sources, and WP:V for verifiability. Finally, you should not be writing an article about yourself - if you are truly famous and have made an important influence on Greek music as a solo musician and your music has charted nationally, there would be articles about you about you in established newspapers or magazines, and someone would write a Wikipedia about you, see WP:AUTOBIO. If you feel you can meet all these criteria, you may develop a new article in your User space, you may then ask an experienced editor to review it for you before it is published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AWB CheckPage

Hi, on the AWB CheckPage I could not find my username until I did a manual search with my browser and found myself right at the top of the M's. Could you please put my username in its alphabetical order, when you next update it, just in case anyone needs to refer to it in future for some reason. I should be between "Marcika" and "Marcus Qwertyus" on the list. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Demi Moore

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Demi Moore. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you changing it back to a subsection, it just appeared to visually end the voting section

When you added your comment as a subsection it visually appeared to have ended the voting section, making it confusing for users who wanted to review and vote on whether to support or oppose the proposal. That is why I moved it on friendly grounds to being a comment. However if this is not acceptable I will accept you changing it back. Though I suggest that you make it a completely different section so as to not confuse it as having ended the voting session.--R-41 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Just a message, based on a few comments of yours that I've seen today, to say thank you for your unerring politeness and consideration towards other users. As an exemplar of AGF, you shine. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Yunshui :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it acceptable in Wikipedia policy to spread a user contribution effort by administraotrs in English Wikipedia to ask for support from users from other language Wikipedias?

In regards to the East Germany article discussion on satellite state status, I discussed with User:POVbrigand about the possibility of bringing in Eastern European users who are able to speak English into the discussion on Talk:East Germany. Me and this user hold different views on the topic, I agree with the proposal at Talk:East Germany, he opposes, but he addressed the issue of bringing up the material on German Wikipedia on the matter that gave me this idea. I know that Wikipedia policy permits and sometimes promotes one language Wikipedia to observe and perhaps include material from another language Wikipedia. Could this apply to administrators like yourself being able to send a request to another language Wikipedia to ask for support? Also, I am wondering if we could get an additional month to compile detailed material for this issue at the article East Germany as this is a serious issue that will set a precedent for the other Wikipedia articles on states that have been identified as satellite states of the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

From my of view as a purely neutral observer (I would very much have liked to have offered comment to the debate, but I must recuse myself) it had certainly occurred to me already that some cross-Wiki 'canvassing' may well be a possibility. I am not aware of any rules that prevent inviting other-language Wikis to comment in the same way that we advertise our discussions here. I would support the idea, but you may need to obtain opinion from other editors more knowledgeable about such a policy than I am. That said, I would not think that an extension to the discussion is necessary; far better would be for some participants who have said all they can for now, to step back for a while, as it is quite possible that others who would have commented are not bothering after seeing the passionate, but not very objective arguments that are now dominating the discussion. If you ask others, don't hesitate to refer them to this discussion here. I am only surmising, but it is possible that those who have bureaucrat or arbcom status might be the best to contact. Avoid formulating your request(s) in a way that may be construed as canvassing for the discussion. Feel free to keep me up to date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor

I note that you've been actively involved in the current school AfD fiasco. Is it possible to ask for you as an admin to ask for a decision to be reviewed? This historic school in Old Windsor dating back to 1725 has now been redirected. The decision seems to go against the consensus and against all common sense. The AfD page can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor. Dahliarose (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into it now and let you know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And it's now redirected to a school with which there seems to be little connection. Shouldn't it have been redirected to a locality where it could have been, at least, mentioned in passing? SURPRISE! ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the consensus would have been 'keep' with 'redirect' a close second. You would need to take this up with the closer User:Guerillero. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It certainly never should have been deleted, even if it had been redirected. I'm sure Guerillo made an innocent error - I 've made the same mistake myself in the past. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Epeefleche: 1/2 redirect (because he left that option open in his nom)
• Fmph: delete
• Carrite: Redirect
• danjel: keep
• Night of the Big Wind: delete or redirect (thus redirect)
• Luciferwildcat: Keep
• Purplebackpack: keep
• dahliarose: keep

keep 4, delete 2, redirect 2.5. For some odd reason Kudpung didn't vote on this one ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've also put a comment on the admin's talk page. If the school is going to be redirected it should be redirected to the page for Old Windsor and not another school page. Dahliarose (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember the content of the school article specifically, but the closer has offered to userfy the contents if there was anything meaningful to be merged. Fmph (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

AfDs are not vote counts --Guerillero | My Talk 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the AfD several times over before concluding easily that the consensus was not 'delete'. In my opinion, there were strong arguments for keep, and 'redirect' (with simple conversion to the article by blanking rather than deletion) would be the default in a close call. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Guerillero stands by his decision. See User talk:Guerillero. Is there any way that a review of this AfD can be requested from another admin? Is there some way I can access the deleted article so that I can recreate the page? If this school hadn't got caught up in these mass school AfDs then this situation wouldn't have arisen in the first place and there would have been more time for other editors to consider the article. 10:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course there's a way to access the deleted data. I've mentioned it above. Guerillero has offered to userfy it for you. Just go back to him and say yes please. He has indicated that he didn't mean to delete it. It was an omission on his part. Don't forget he's a volunteer. He's not paid for his work here, and he (andf every other admin) occasionally get it wrong. By and large they are not being malicious or conttrary. They are just trying to do the drudgery that is needed to keep the project alive. Fmph (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm not sure quite what is meant by "userfy" but I've put a request on Guerillero's talk page to ask if the article history could be restored to the redirect so that the article can be recreated as and when. I hadn't intended to imply criticism of our hard-working volunteer admins who all do a wonderful job. The problem in this case was with an overzealous editor who has been mass-nominating school articles for deletion without making proper checks for sources first. 13:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read my "Elizabeth Craze" expansion?

Hello Kudpung! I'm ready for your review, at your convenience. Elizabeth Craze Thank you! Petersontinam (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem..I only have my kindle now and it won't let me edit anything with length. I will have to come back after the blackout...will that be ok? -Petersontinam (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article, checking, updating, and organising the references that I have now place inline. I have recast some of the prose for formal language. Some claims are tagged inline as needing references, but a closer reading of the source web sites may provide that information. Please see the citation technique for usng one ref several time - more details on that at WP:CITE. To see the full extent of the changes, please compare the diffs (Kudpung) in the article history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you had to take care of those things...with kindle, if the section is long you can't scroll up or down to edit when the keyboard is onscreen. Typing with one finger is not so easy either. If the article can sit, I will fix it Thursday. And no, I had no idea how to fix/edit references all at once where you had citations needed. Have been trying to read that. Thank you! Petersontinam (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean when a bot is dating message tags, the cn's ? Petersontinam (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It just means that I am too lazy to enter the date in the tags because I know that a bot will do it for me ;)

When I do a copy edit of a short article, if each change is relatively minor I often do everything in one edit, make a reasonably detailed edit summary, and occasionally place an additional note on the article talk page; it saves cluttering the edit history, and I'm not in a hurry to increase my edit count! We're not obliged to use citation temples (WP:CITE), but it makes life much easier (and the source page clearer). There is a button for this in the edit window toolbar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I fixed the citations needed...didn't realize that I just had to put in "StandfordMed"...I kept trying to put in Standford School of Medicine and it was very screwy. The last citation needed for the CCF newsletter: I am waiting to hear back from Sheila Gibbons on that for the exact date. Can it stay until the newsletter is published, or should it come off until it is published? Thank you. I know it's a pain in the butt to keep coming back to these things and I appreciate your help so much. Petersontinam (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You seems to have done a excellent job on that - you're learning very fast! Don't worry too much about that last cn tag, move on to something else now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		You are patient, helpful, and kind to the new "kids" on the block! Petersontinam (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Suriel1981's talk page.
Message added 11:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

John H. Dessauer

Thanks, I really laughed my head off at that one. Responsible for the success of the Xerox Corporation. In future please google search something and allow editors time to write something and source it.. The German wikipedia link at least should have told you it might be notable...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to rant at me either - you know the rules too, after having created thousands of stubs. Did you at least remember to add the atrib? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Multinet Matrix Grid

Dear Sir, I firmly protest your deletion of my page under development called Multinet Matrix Grid. It is inexcusably rude to label a professional term that you clearly know little about as a "hoax." I own this intellectual property and it is my personal creation. I am simply using it in updated other professional webpages that have, themselves, been indexed by Google for many years, which we have for our offerings to the professional community and protecting our intellectual property, which is compliant with the accepted Best Practices of the net.

It is very clear that you are not a satellite professional and I do not remember you ever participating in any INTELSAT satellite conferences in the 1990s....from when this term dates. I am perfectly entitled to claim and document my own intellectual property. Satellite experts who came to these closed door professional only conferences know me well and remember my work, thank you.

You can send me an apology and stay out of my technical work, please. I will accept your apology based on the fact that you are not a satellite professional. If you were an engineer of a licensed international telecommunications carrier, you would probably understand it. I also presented this concept in a similarly closed door conference for state telecom customers of Intelsat in Budapest in 1994. Of course, if you did not work for an invited state telecom you would not have heard my presentation and you would not have been entitled to read my paper discussing this topic which was published in the proceedings.

We provide professional services for the telecommunications community and my family has been in this business since 1885, thank you. I am simply documenting our past work and as an editor you are expected to respect the professional work of others. If you do not like the fact that I use a proxy for security reasons, then that is your problem. Millions of people along the Asian Pacific Rim where you live use a blind proxy for security reasons.

I expect a written reply to my email, today, please, and a promise to not interfere with my professional work, thank you. I certainly respect and do not interfere with your work or that of others. Thank you Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4kumquats (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello 4kumquats. We do not reply by email, and I am sorry, but I am under no compulsion to accept an article from you that you claim to own, and that is your own, unreferenced, original research, and possibly an advert for it. Furthermore, I would ask you please to respect our rules - you are in no way perfectly entitled to claim and document your own intellectual property on Wikipedia or insist that it be included here. Please do not attack our editors again, or unfortunately you and your IP connection will be blocked from editing the encyclopedia. Please click these blue links to know more: 1. WP:OWN, 2. WP:OR, 3. WP:PA, 4. WP:PROXY, 5. WP:PA. Kind regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello editor,

Thank you for your reply, but my reply is professional about satellite work and done among professionals in that domain. OK, maybe I do not know the nice pretty phrases you like to use, but I suspect you are apparently a "general editor" and not a professional satellite telecommunications engineer. Certainly top engineers at CISCO will understand it. Also, this kind of engineering English may not be easy for you to read. So, please cool down and know that no silly 'attack' is intended, but be cognizant of the fact hat when you attempt to edit and pass judgement on professional concepts that you are likely untrained or insufficiently trained to evaluate, you risk making massive errors...and frankly annoying serious professionals. So, I think that we have cleared the air on this issue. This is not advertizing, either, as you probably guessed after you wrote your ill advised remark, as it is a general concept of network engineering that applies to global and space communications grids, but perhaps you are not sufficiently qualified to have gathered it, quickly, before you wrote your ill conceived accusation that perhaps it is advertising. All of this is very funny except that it is a huge waste of my professional time on a Friday which is a business day.

Can we declare peace, and get professional about this? Frankly, we believe our 1st page Google listings for our key search terms related to this kind of work is ample proof of the "authoritative content" on our pages. Everybody makes honest mistakes, OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4kumquats (talk • contribs) 12:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the advice pages that I have given you links for. I regret that we cannot accept your article at this time. It is unfortunate that you have spent so much of your valuable time before reading our rules first. You are welcome to write other articles for our encyclopedia, but they must not be about your own work, or about work to which you have a close connection. Please see also WP:COI for information on your conflict of interest. As well as a 'general editor', I just happen to an administrator here, and I further regret that I may have to consider blocking your account. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hi, thank you for your welcome to Wikipedia. I've been working with Worcestershire Pubic transport data management for the past 9 years so I am very well placed to keep List of bus routes in Worcestershire up to date, and maybe expand to other pages once this is complete.

Being new, I find there is a lot I need to learn so I would be grateful for your help in pointing out any newbie mistakes that I am bound to make. Worcesterbuses (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very pleased to welcome you again, especially as you are from Worcestershire and near my home town of Malvern (although I have lived abroad for nearly 40 years). I am possibly the major contributor or author of all the Malvern related articles on Wikipedia, and I also coordinate the Wiki project Worcestershire - so we need all the help we can get on Worcestershire articles. Do check out the project pages, ad don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions. I will link you to a copy I have salvaged from the Malvern article on bus routes. I had to remove it because it was too detailed for a Wikipedia article, and it was also very out of date, but it will perhaps give you some ideas for your bus tables. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RevChain Solutions on Wikipedia

Hello, I work at RevChain Solutions and am trying to add them to the 'Telecommunications Billing' page on Wikipedia. This is a real entity with no nefarious wishes. The page lists FTS, but not RevChain. RevChain was purchased by PAETEC from FTS a year or two ago. PAETEC was acquired by Windstream. I just want RevChain in the listing, but every time I create a RevChain page it gets deleted. The first time i realized was due to duplicated content. The second I wrote from scratch, so don't understand it's deletion.

Please help, Thanks, Corey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duksauce (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RevChain Solutions

The relevance is that RevChain is an actual Telecommunications Billing Software Provider. So it should be in the list on wikipedia's page. I am not SPAMing this is actual and real.

Please help.

Thanks, Corey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duksauce (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately you have a page patroller and two admins who don't agree with you. Please follow the links in the various messages on your talk page to see where you went wrong. If you can then comply with our policies and criteria for inclusion, feel free to recreate, but please draft it in your userspace first, complete with reliable, independent, third party sources so we can review it before it is published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm figuring out the issue. The RevChain page that these guys want to delete, I don't actually need. I only need to add RevChain to the Telecommunications Billing page. Which has a list of companies that provide this service. RevChain is one of these companies, in fact, it's last parent company, FTS is listed. When I attempted to edit the page and add the text and link to the website, I didn't understand your code, so it led me to create the RevChain page.

Is there an easy way to include RevChain in the aforementioned page, delete the RevChain only page and get the color of the text 'RevChain' on the Telecommunications Billing page to be blue and not red?

Today is my first day editing Wikipedia, I appreciate any help and apologize for causing any confusion.

Thanks, Duksauce Duksauce (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The RevChain article has already been deleted. You can add a mention of it to Telecommunications Billing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Stevie Wishart

Dear Kudpung

I have a message of a proposed deletion of the page : http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Stevie_Wishart. I am new to wiki so may have made some errors here ... however, the reason seems to be the lack of 'reliable sources'. I have added a few to the page now and I hope that they are formatted correctly. Does this now look OK to pass control and stay on the site.

Be very grateful for your help

thanks

Vanessa-atalanta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessa-atalanta (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(From a friend of Kudpung) Hello Vanessa-atalanta. I had a look at the article and those are enough for now. I've removed the proposed deletion tag. But I also had to remove some of the text. I left a note on your talk page explaining more about this. Best, wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: new user warning test results available

Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

1. We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
2. Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit Joel Anderson?

Dear Kudpung, Tried to jump in on an article, but am not sure of direction needed-Joel Anderson- It's tagged under "Polical career", but not specific if the entire body is in question...or just "San Diego Activism." Nothing on the Talk Page is helpful. I don't want to undo what is fine, and most seems fine. Thank you. (Maybe it's better for me to start with something shorter and simpler?) Petersontinam (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That article would be quite a challenge - even for me. It's a mess. Although it passes all our criteria for inclusion (unfortunately) it's nothing more than a political piece to build a cult figure. Thereis very little personal biography and the entire article is a rambling screed of every tiny detail of the man's political career, right down to the oversized mug shot and happy-family photo. The early life and family section has nothing to do with with 'the man' except for the last four lines. It's typical of an article that appears to be designed as a vehicle for mentioning every every possible referenced source that could be found about him. The whole article could be cut to a quarter of its size and still say enough and be too big. Using quotes like this: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke favorably of Anderson's legislation, and acknowledged that the state should position itself to have a "powerful stand against terrorism".[17] and Upon news that the Governor would sign the bill, Anderson stated, "This is a common sense bill. Money is the mother's milk of terrorism."[17] is pure grandstanding. Of course, if we would cut the article down, we would have the republicans on our backs, but it's typical of the many US politiker bios that we have. Compare the David Cameron article about Britain's most powerful man. It's a genuine biography rather than a campaign brochure. Unless you are a devout republican, I would suggest looking for articles that are a third of the length. Some bios that ramble on a bit are those about creative professionals (musicians, artists, authors, etc.) that badly need recasting for style and flow, and references. But that's just my opinion - don't let me sway you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for explaining. I think I should start by reading more Bio's for reference before jumping into one. I was looking at it factually, and how it was written..had not seen the grandstanding point of view. Now I understand (though I did think it weirdly had everything but the kitchen sink!). I need more experience in what is appropriate, or encyclopedic, on a Bio. BTW, neither Republican nor Democrat...right smack dab in the middle without a party. Petersontinam (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to take other articles as an example. Some bios I have written, heavily expanded, or translated from other Wikis are Rose Garrard (written) , Dominique Mainard (translated & re-edited), Christine Charbonneau (translated & re-edited),, George Sayer (written) , Hellmut Hattler (translated, expanded, & re-edited),, Julius Harrison (written), Harvey Pittel, Edward Keonjian, Edward Keonjian, Ursula Werner. It's possible that other editors have since added stuff that needs cleaning up, otherwise they should be fairly OK to quote you as examples - but note that I'm not perfect either. Check the talk pages for any comments. To look for bios that urgently need cleaning up, check out Category:BLP articles lacking sources from January 2012. If you work on any of these, don't hesitate to tag them for anything you can't resolve yourself, or even deletion (WP:PROD). When you are just a little bit more familiar with our criteria for inclusion, you may well find some perverse satisfaction in working on New Page Patrol; it's an essential task that is in serious disarray because it strangely does not require a special user right - it is therefore a magnet for very inexperienced editors. I am trying to get a bunch of mature, clueful, and conscientious users together who can do it properly. For tagging articles, consider installing the WP:Twinkle tool - it makes life so much easier than hunting around to find the templates to use. As always, don't hesitate to ask me for any help or advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
Message added 07:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Made changes to Primary education; if you could please check and make any wording changes necessary. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I trust your editing skills implicitly, but I will take a look. Thanks for your help on this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Vasant Valley School

Hi, Kudpung. I know you've dealt with a lot of school-related articles. Do we have any relevant guidelines (for anything other than titles) that are specific to the topic? I can't find any. I'm especially wondering about all of the student names present in the article. I'm inclined to just kill that whole section per WP:V, but I wondered if there was anything more targeted. The article has multiple issues, to put it mildly. (Editing through a NyQuil-induced semi-stupor. Excuse any incoherence.) Rivertorch (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing this out. I have already deleted the names. perhaps deletiing its section as trivia would be a good idea too. Guidelines covering this are at WP:WPSCH/AG, WP:LISTPEOPLE, and of course the rules of BLP applies everywhere people are mentioned in the encycloperida - they must be sourced, and minors should not be mentioned unless absolutely necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes. I think I'll leave the section tagged for a few days, and if no one improves it I'll delete it as trivia. Ditto other stuff in the article. WP:WPSCH/AG looks like an excellent resource; some of it seems sensible enough to be actual guideline, not just WikiProject guideline. Anyway, thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahh! we've been trying to get a consensus to promote that page to 'guideline' for a long time. It depends on how the huge precedent for school notability is viewed by editors who may not fully understand or accept policies/guidelines such as WP:DELETION , WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:PRECEDENT. If you're working on school articles and not yet a member, don't hesitate to join the project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Carolina Sandoval

Hi im putting the sources right now and editting please check it when is complete thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topmartz (talk • contribs) 11:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Archery

Well that book can't be searched on Google Books, there are a few other earlier books called "Target Archery" by the same author which can be searched [7] but I'm not sure if they're different versions of the same book or not. I don't know of any other way of checking for copyvio short of getting hold of a physical copy of the book. Hut 8.5 13:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm always suspicious when I see huge chinks of well written prose like that without inline refs and with only one or two book sources. Maybe somebody can get a copy from a library - perhaps DGG? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This might be helpful. Hut 8.5 17:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I usually run to DGG when I need anything like that for articles I'm working on, but I don't like to bother him too much for stuff that's not really his concern. Asking at noticboards isn't always fruitful - it depends how urgent it is or how important the issue is. There's always Moonriddengirl too if it's a serious copyvio.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at RichardOSmith's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion nomination 2 weeks after it was closed?

Can an unconfirmed user nominate an article for deletion 2 weeks after it was kept? I am speaking of the Ben Breedlove article. Thank you. Petersontinam (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination template was removed. Someone explained to the anom that they did not use policy. Petersontinam (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I know of no such rule, where was it it quoted? Policy: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). I see that an attempted renomination has been quashed and while renominating after only two weeks is silly, I can't find any rule that prevents it, but I may be wrong, see policy: Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome. WP:AUTOC lists what most editors can and can't do if they don't have any special rights. personally I think it's time to give the Breedlove article a rest - it doesn't bode too well to get emotionally involved with articles, especially where you are now doing great job at looking for articles to clean up. You'll find that working on articles with detachment will give you a completely new feel for editing. You can always choose not to touch some kinds of articles; for example, I never venture into politics or religion because they are to contentious, or sport bios because they are written by fans, and for some odd reason only need the very flimsiest of references (a mere mention on a list on any football site will do, where an esteemed professor or scientist has to jump through a whole page of hoops in order to be considered notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I've read the report in depth and responded to it. It's a pity there are so few editors imposing scrutiny on the WMF reports at the moment. MER-C 08:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your break!

Good oh. Enjoy your research on various local beersbreak. :) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

↑What User:Danjel said. →Στc. 10:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your time! Petersontinam (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Hanley Castle High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liberal Democrat

Little Malvern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Staverton

Malvern Link (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Staverton

Malvern Wells (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Staverton

Newland, Worcestershire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Staverton

North Malvern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Staverton

Poolbrook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Staverton

Sherrard's Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Staverton

West Malvern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Staverton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

conduct unbecoming an administrator

You need to explain your accusation (on Pesky's page) that Malleus has driven away another editor.

You also need to apologize for your passive aggressive baiting of Malleus.

You are an administrator, and should not further dishonor your office.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What was TIAYN doing with the edit that was pouring spaces into the article? You reverted it and shut down the page to contribution

TIAYN did this edit [[8]] that provoked you to revert it and shutdown the article to user contribution. TIAYN appears to have vandalized the page by pouring spaces into the reference section for the satellite state sentence making a huge space between the statement and the references. Is this vandalism? And if it is, are you going to take action against TIAYN for this?--R-41 (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

Have you actually taken a look at my edit??? I didn't do anything, I just added "*". Seriously... Did you even take a look at my edit??? This has to be the dummest thing an administrator has ever done on wiki, blocking an article when I just improved a reference..... --TIAYN (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, friend

I'd like to suggest that User:Rick Norwood be granted Rollbacker and Auto-patrolled user rights. I see that he has started nearly 100 articles LINK and sits as the 3328th most active Wikipedian LINK. I don't know him but just bumped into his stuff today and it moved me to investigate his status. It looks like his status has been overlooked thus far. Thanks for taking a look at this, it seems like he's ready for advanced Content Creator rights... —Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

While I'm on the subject, another who needs Auto-Patrolled status, it would seem, is User:Valfontis, an administrator with 61K edits and well over 100 articles created LINK. Or are the new articles of Administrators auto-patrolled by default? Carrite (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Carrite. Unfortunately, Kudpung's taking/attempting a Wikibreak, but I'd be happy to take care of this. Regarding Rick, I agree. Autopatrolled granted. I didn't give rollback since they don't really seem to be a vandal fighter and as such, may not want the extra button (if they do want it, I'll let them know to just ask). And regarding Valfontis, Autopatrolled is indeed given to admins by default. Regards, Swarm ^X 18:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, next time before making accusations about me like I have an alt. account do your homework first. That's not nice, and I am unsympathetic to your current problems as you are to mine. It goes both ways in this life. Cadonian (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Hi Kudpung. Morriswa and Caspertheghost were both already on the checkpage when they made their requests, but you denied their requests. Dunno if you want to switch them to approved, or remove them from the checkpage - up to you. Although I notice that you are currently inactive, so I will just mark them as approved in a week or so, if you haven't done anything by then. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridgeway Elementary School (Wisconsin)

Kudpung, hope you'll be back here. At any rate, please have a look at the AfD and fill in the blanks I may have left (the redirect thing). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved issue

Hello, recently added a section to this talk page regarding the deletion of the Flight Facilities page. Unfortunately I never saw a response from you and instead the message was deleted when you edited the page, presumably to archive. I would really like to hear back from you, especially since you are the only one who could help me with this particular concern. Thank you, Forenti^talk 03:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT

Hi Kudpung, I see you are simply removing sections about administrative actions you've taken without response. If you are unable to comply with WP:ADMINACCT, then I would recommend that you stop taking actions altogether. Dealing with concerns about your actions is as much a part of being an admin as actually taking administrative actions, and if, due to your activity level, you can only manage to do the latter, perhaps you should not be doing either. This is not to say I don't appreciate the work you're doing, nor that I don't think you deserve a break, but taking a "half-break", where you still make random actions, can be more harmful then if you just take a full one. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but I don't see that you have dealt with the thing I bought up, actually. Making occasional edits while reading, I don't have a problem with. However, when you're deleting and protecting articles (which you are still doing since your notice about activity) and apparently not responding to others comments, I do have an issue. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)