User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jun 2011

Here you go

Wow! Thank you - I am humbled. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:ABG1997

Thanks for the notification of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ABG1997. I had been considering doing the same myself, but not yet got round to it. I have now looked further, and, as you will see at the MfD page, found that this editor has used several accounts to keep creating this material in several paces. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... trying to use some of his 'magic' ;) I'll look into it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW: Judging by its edit history in general, perhaps this Template:Famous Magicians should be full protected.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. Certainly a significant proportion of recent editing has consisted of "add non-notable entry/revert" cycles. My own feeling, however, is that the edits are not disruptive enough to justify full-protection, and even semi-protection is borderline. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa.com

Thanks for the note. I've withdrawn the proposal; the article may well be viable (or not), but I'll leave that to others. Too much brain fug. Haploidavey (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

New Page added - might be taken off

hi, just added a new page Met Film School and got a messgae, it might be taken off/deleted. can you please advice how can the page be saved? much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpmind (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please see the maintenance tags on the article, follow all the blue links in them, and try to address the issues. It mainly concerns the requirement for reliable third party sources that assert notability for schools and organisations. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 04:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yasmin lamadrid

How was random text (over half the article) not a G1? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It featured a person's name and perfect coherent, and possibly libelous sentence about the person. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Ser

Hi. I did extensive copyedits on this article and toned it down. Would you mind giving it a once over to see if there is anything I've missed? I'd like to send it to DYK. Thanks.--v/r - TP 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at this. You've obviously put a lot of hard work into it. Although it does not strictly contravene any Wikipedia policies and principles, it still reads a tad promotional or like a magazine piece. The lead, for example does not follow WP:LEAD recommendations. I'm sure that if I were to have time to check out all the references, I would find a lot that are not valid WP:RS, or that they simply support some of the unnecessary trivia. At this stage, however, none of this matters too much, unless you would want to nominate it for GE. In which case it would come under very close scrutiny. Keep up the good work and Happy editing! What's your next article going to be? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohh, I actually don't do much content creation. I am an aspiring writer, actually, but I am horrible at English. I tend to make start-class articles when something interesting pops up but I generally do NPP. I took on this article because you challenged me to do it and the author is a brand new editor who put substantial work into it. I'll see if I can address the lead issues. Thanks for taking a peek at it.--v/r - TP 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights

Hey Kudpung, can you remove my autopatrolled flag, as I am currently not using it? Thanks. —mc10 (t/c) 23:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to do that, but there's no harm in having it whether you are using it or not. It actually helps us more than it it helps you, even just for statistical purposes as a trusted user. Please confirm before I go ahead. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd still like to have it removed. Cheers, —mc10 (t/c) 00:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As you wish. No problem. If ever you want it back, just let me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Cease and desist

What was your excuse for editing the page? You sir, are being uncivil in violation of the wiki community standards. Any further edits in contravention of my request will be reverted as deliberate vandalism. Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Esther Community Enterprise

Thank-you for your guidelines concerning the use of having a wiki page. However, ECE has been recently awarded with the Queens award for Voluntary Service for addressing a global concern regarding food waste. I am sure you would agree that this is a subject that affects everyone, and should be highlighted.

Kindest regards

June Ross-Wildman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prov3 1 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately it's been deleted because the written instructions about copyright were not followed. See WP:COPYVio. There's nothing I can do about it I'm afraid. Please follow all the blue links in all the messages on your talk page and consider starting a new article in your userspace. If it is not a blatant copyright infringement and also meets our criteria for organisations at WP:ORG and is correctly sourced according to our rules at WP:RS, I'll review it again and publish it to article space for you. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 4 June

2011 (UTC)

Hi I have sent a request via my website address to give permission of copyright on my website. it was sent from info@esthercommunityenterprise.co.uk . i would still like to use wiki to address this, therefore please let me know if you have recieved my email.

Kindest regards

june

Hi. We have several hundred volunteers working here so I won't get to know personally if you have granted our copyright department permission to use your material. You will need to quote me any response you get from them. However, the WP:COPYVIO is only one of several issues that need to be addressed. The Wikipedia is indeed 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', but thee are several strict policies that have to be observed. One is that you may not be writing an article about yourself or a subject you are closely connected to, see WP:COI. I do really suggest that you read all the instructions that have been posted to your talk page, it'll take a while, but I think you'll find it's worth it. If you would first like a brief 5 minute summary of our deletion policy, do read this: User:Kudpung/Article deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me know when you are ready for a second run. As you can see from 28Bytes RfA, a second attempt often attracts overwhelming support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

CSD question

Hello, Kudpung, I have a question about a CSD tag. What should this page be tagged as? —mc10 (t/c) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). A10, but probably be best just to redirect it to Americans in the United Kingdom. 28bytes (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cecilia Grace

hello and thankx for the message on my wall. i feel that your the nicest person here. everyone else just argues with me and tells me that i don’t know what i’m talking about. So i’m realy hopful that you could help me here. and get cecilia graces wiki article back up. pls could you help me find sources to appease those people ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Well unfortunately I'm also one of 'those people' that you need to appease ;) and even worse I'm afraid, I'm an administrator, which means I had a good look at the deleted article already. The problem is, as I said before, that Cecilia isn't ready for an article yet unless sources can be found that prove she's important enough. I know that she's important for you, so I had a good search for the right kind of sources and I just couldn't find any. It might take quite while until Cecilia has hit the national charts and been mentioned in Billboard and performed on a lot of TV and done a concert tour, so as I said before, I think it would be a great idea while we're waiting for something like that to happen, if you think of something easier to write an article about, or even help us out by correcting the mistakes in other articles. BTW: do have a read of this page: WP:TPG, always look at the top of talk pages for any instructions, and remember to sign your posts. Follow all those blue links on your talk page, and as always, if ever you need help, you know where to find me. Do remember though, I live a long way away in another time zone, and chances are I may be asleep. Take care. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

WOW YOUR UP AT 1:00 AM! you must be realy tired right

oh and if your "an administrator" that can look at the wiki article, then doesn’t that mean cecilia’s article is still there!? kudpung, both cecilia and i want her to have a wiki article. when she found out it got deleted, we comforted each other- we both were crying. she thought that people thought her singing sucked and that she wasn’t important enough. she felt realy degraded, but if the article is still there then you must be able to bring it back. ill do anything to bring it upto wiki standard.

i just want to say thank you so much. your realy nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that the article can be restored unless you provide those references. Nobody here has got anything against Ccilia's music - we don't even know her. And that's just the problem, outside of her own neighbourhood, nor does anyone else. And that's why there are no reliable sources for her yet. (See WP:BAND). Take my advice, write something else in the meantime or help correct and expand some other articles. And PLEASE read WP:TPG and all the other instructions before you do anything else. Best, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

so theres no hope... well then i might try to write about some of my other artist friends then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Art Directors Club Deleted?

Hey Kudpung?

is there a reason why you deleted the Art Directors Club? it is the foremost creative communication club in the world. Started in 1920, and continues to influence the careers of many creative people around the world. http://adcglobal.org many artists represented on the the site cite the influence of the organization.

-thank you the art directors club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.22.182 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It was procedurally deleted because it was brought to my attention by a Proposal for Deletion as having been the encyclopedia for five years without a single reference that asserts its importance. After the author(s) was/were notified there was no reaction and after the statutory seven days the page was automatically deleted. It may be possible to to have this article restored, but only on the strict understanding that verifiable, reliable third party sources about the organisation can be found that assert the club's notability. If you, or another person has found references, I will restore the page to your (or another person's) user page where it can be completed with the required referenced sources before being published again as a live page. There is no doubt whatsoever that the orgqnisation is notable, but unfortunately no exceptions to our rules can be made. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Demme redirect

Redirect I didn't create a misnamed article—I created a redirect for what is a reasonable misspelling of his name. If someone searches for "Johnathan Demme", he will now be redirected to the proper article: Jonathan Demme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for now creating the right kind of redirect. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

regarding your comment on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Plastic_Recycling_and_the_need_for_Bio-polymers_in_India

Dear Kudpung,

This is regarding your comment on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Plastic_Recycling_and_the_need_for_Bio-polymers_in_India. We are friends of Almitra Patel trying to get much needed information from her website to a wider audience. There is nothing in these articles about her, but there is heaps of information critical to successful solid waste management in India. You will find lots on Almitra Patel's work if you google her name. She is a bit technologically challenged (aren't we all ?), is very much on mail but cant currently handle putting her stuff on wikipedia so we are helping her.

Your comment about deletion may be valid in the complex set of norms wikipedia has had to develop to be open yet authentic to the real world. But I for one did not really get the point you were making. Please help me and Devayani, the person actually putting the edits in, understand your objection. you can mail me at <redacted> but of course we will be visiting these pages also. Regards, Anjana Mehta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.161.153 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your wish to see this this article accepted by Wikipedia. However, the matter is not in my hands. A deletion debate has started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. Following the nominator's statement although I am the first editor to offer an opinion on it, many more comments from other editors will follow. The process will continue for a full seven days, after which an uninvolved administrator will summarize the community's decision. During this time, you are however welcome to continue to edit the article and provide the references that another administrator has requested. Please note that only the creator is permitted to edit the Wikipedia in her name - if you and anyone else wish to improve the article, you must either contribute without logging in, or create your own accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this one will also be problematic Solid waste policy in India. Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear! It's always a shame when people add new content with the best of intentions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung, I am the ghost writer for the above mentioned article that has been nominated for deletion. Seems the other article I contributed on Solid Waste policy in India is also under the scanner. In a way, I am glad to run into this hiccup, it shows me just what a thorough system is in place to assess and monitor the content. If the article in anyway does not meet the wikipedia standards of publishing, I will be happy to make amends. I am still familiarising myself with the language/script and may have made a good many errors in my first attempts. If you could point out more in detail exactly what went wrong, how I can tweak it to better meet the standards and how best this content can find its way onto Wiki, we would do our best to proceed accordingly. Yes, new content with good intentions must be hardest to administrate. Thank you for your comments and opinions...I value your time! Patel almitra (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani, under the guise of Almitra Patel

Hi. The details of what went wrong are being discussed at the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. As I said before, this is now out of my hands because decisions like these are made by the Wikipedia community. There's nothing much you can do now other than wait until the debate is closed by an administrator who is not involved in the discussion. You could of course try to find sources for the information in your papers, but other issues are those of copyright (do you own the copyright personally, or is it now owned by the journal that published your paper?), and the fact that your information may now be out of date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, I shall follow the thread at the deletion debates. Yes, the author owns the copyright personally, and has commissioned me to transfer it onto Wikipedia under her name. Being a practical issue, with a great deal of hands-on procedures, I do not think the material would be outdated. They are still in effect across India, and successful. We are just trying to bring it to the attention of a wider audience. I shall ask the author to compose a mail regarding the copyrights as soon as possible. Thank you! Patel almitra (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani

Orphaned non-free image File:WorcesterCoatArms.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WorcesterCoatArms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

My talk page is getting crowded, so I thought I would reply here and offer my thanks for the congratulations. I deeply appreciate the support you've offered me throughout all this, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on RfA reform and elsewhere! Best, 28bytes (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. When you get home from work and out of your nice office uniform, you'll need to don your oldest set of fatigues for this job! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for editing statistics about article creation by non-autoconfirmed editors

I'm more an analyst than a generator of statistics. So while I can't help actually create the data you want, I do have a couple of suggestions and questions for you to consider:

• There is a "Proposals" section on the WikiProject Editing page; I think you'd be better off posting your request there than on the talk page, though having notified everyone, you're likely to get attention one way or another.
• You should mention that the proposal has not been implemented yet, so that data collection should continue through June 30th. That raises the related question of whether you'll be ready to roll out the new process on July 1st. (Otherwise, you'll have to adjust the second six month period accordingly.)
• You probably should state that you want the data to be broken out in a month-to-month format. While in theory that's not necessary, it would be helpful to spot data generation problems, I believe, and it shouldn't be much more difficult than generating single (total) numbers for all six months.
• Your 8 questions include a bit of duplication: 1 = 2 + 3. (If you agree, you might drop question 3.) You also might want to clarify that the editors were not auto-confirmed at the time they created their article, though of course they could become autoconfirmed at a later point.
• Question 5 has some ambiguity - what are "constructive edits"? It would be easier to answer if it were something like "have made more than 1 mainspace edit since their article was deleted".
• For question 6, are you interested in blocks of any length, or just indefinite blocks? (Whichever should be explicitly stated.)
• You don't ask about articles created by autoconfirmed users. If you have that count (or the total count of created articles) from somewhere else, that's good; otherwise, I think you'll lack perspective on how many new articles get added by non-autoconfirmed editors versus autoconfirmed editors.
• The Articles Wizard can be used by any editor; if you're going to get a total count of articles created that way, you probably should also get get a breakdown of autoconfirmed versus non-autoconfirmed editors using that tool.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks enormously for your input here. You have certainly raised some points that we have omitted or not provided enough detail on. The figure for the AFC and Wizard are not essential - this was a result of questions posed in the main RfC and is facultative; neither the trial nor the new rule itself depends upon their use, it would however be interesting to see if there is an increase in their use during the trial as there have been suggestions to make them more user friendly. The proposal has not been implemented yet and is still at draft stage, but the trial must start soon and must not turn into a re-dabate of the consensus that was reached. These stats do not strictly need to be available before the trial starts, but there are certainly going to be questions during the discussion to fix the parameters and criteria for the trial so it's best to get these stats as soon as possible. You can see the full draft here, and we would appreciate your further analysis of it, and feel free to make any edits to it directly. Further brief background information is here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing more to add, but I've revised my text, above, to be a bit more actionable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look

Ben Ripley Draft

Four reliable sources that support his business with Duncan Jones and credit for Source Code. I'm quite certain the article meets the minimum requirements for notability and would obviously be classified as a "stub" article. Let me know what you think. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. To be quite honest, these sources are not reliable (see WP:V) - you took your information from them, but we don't know where they got their information and if it was audited. The NYT page is only a listing. There must be a third party article in some print media dedicated to him somewhere, or a perhaps a TV interview. Keep looking and if you can find one I'll move it to main space as a stub for you. Rome wasn't built in a day. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What sources are not reliable? Hollywood reporter, wired, empire - all mainstream hollywood publications. Take some time to read through the sources and let me know what content specifically requires further verification. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hollywood Reporter: carries only a fleeting mention 'Written by Ben Ripley, Source Code stars Jake Gyllenhaal ...' and is not about Ben Ripley. It simply confirms that he wrote the movie.
• Wired: the site section is a blog. It is not about Ben Ripley., It is about the movie. It simply confirms that he wrote the movie and made some comments about it.
• Empire: is again about a movie that will be made. It simply confirms that he wrote the movie and made some comments about it.

None of these are dedicated articles about Ben Ripley the person, therefore for Wikipedia purposes, in my opinion, notability is not asserted. You are welcome to obtain a second opinion from the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Do the sources support the content in the article? Yes they do. Ripley authored Source Code, check. Ripley authored a series of other T.V and mainstream movies, check. What else needs to be said? Ripley has received significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV, and it would be hard to argue Ripley does not meet the minimum threshold for notability. The sources are reliable (this isn't being disputed), so why would I need to go to an RS board? He wrote Source Code. The film made over 100 million at the box office. Let me know, thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

An article "dedicated about Ben Ripley the person" - here. Imagine what can be found if the article was on the main space. What other problems are there, specifically? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail (bold type is mine), so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

Include the ref at WGA but be sure to use a cite template (use the button on your editing toolbar) and include all the relevant data. If you are prepared to accept that the article may be tagged by patrollers, I'll move it for you, but please clean up the other naked URLs per WP:CITE first, and include the retrieved dates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All right done. Added more background. It would be helpful if/when this is moved to userspace so other editors can work on it because I don't have a huge amount of time to continue this. Are we good to go now? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

From my experience, I don't personally think it will attract much attention from other editors, at least not the regulars - many share my opinion that a creator should do most of the work to ensure that an article is 100% within the rules. I'll move it for you when you have cleaned up the citation URLs as I explained, but be sure to watch it in case it gets tagged. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I did use the cite profile for some sources, but it is not mandatory. I feel you are putting unnecessary road blocks here. The article as it stands easily meets the thresholds for notability and has more than enough sources right now. Formatting is another issue. Burden says nothing about the creator. I am just an editor, I do not own the article. I'm saying when this is moved to wikipedia mainspace other editors will be allowed to expand and polish whatever they want. I'm really tired so can you please move it unless you see something blatantly objectionable? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, your more than 'just an editor' you call yourself a 'Wikifan' - everyone who knows the MOS and the policies as well as you do has a moral responsibility to make clean articles. I'm helping you here, and I don't have any obligations to either. I'm not making road blocks- you know how to do this this with the citations and it will only take you five minutes, there is absolutely no hurry, and if it's night time where you are, you can finish it tomorrow. It will still be in your user space. It will get you a lot of kudos for writing clean stubs, that are not littered with 'cleanup' templates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: Your issue is purely about formatting citations? this has nothing to do with notability. There is no reason to keep the article in my userspace. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. You can do the rest yourself tomorrow (and I'm sure you will) such as adding cats and a stub template and cleaning up the ref section, instead of leaving it for the newbs who do WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Tomorrow I would like to move the article to Ben Ripley. I don't think there is a need to include his occupation with the name because there are no other Ben Ripley's on wikipedia. I tried doing it just now but it said the page is protected. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The previous article under that name was a particularly nasty piece of vandalism and nothing to do with the real Ben. If you choose that page name again you have the deletions listed in the page deletion log and if anyone sees them, they may wonder what you've been up to. Up to you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think a tainted deletion is a good rationale for bypassing COMMONNAME. There aren't any other Ben Ripleys so there's no need for the occupational disambiguation. If anyone wonders what Wikifan's been up to, it's not particularly difficult to show that he had nothing to do with the vandal versions. It's possible that in my un-tea-ed state that I've either completely misunderstood you or that the preceeding is gibberish. In that case, disregard. --Danger (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right Danger. I was probably being over precautious.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

(I'm not sure if you have my talk page on your watchlist, so I've done the courtesy of a talkback.) —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins and blocks

What's your view on this? In an RfA everyone wants the candidate to have a clean block log, so what about this? Being blocked during an RfA spells disaster, but after you get the tools it's perfectly acceptable? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 03:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in my own RfA, I usually steer clear of contentious issues. This is because I do not find it personally interesting to untangle massively complex possible breaches of policy or use of admin tools. The areas I work in are New users, NPP, BLP, and RfA policies.I have never understood why edit warring, although highly undesirable, is an infraction that is met with the most rapid and severe interventions. From an admin's standpoint, it can be difficult to know what to do. Take these two metaphors:

Motorcycle traffic cop: This is a 40 mph zone Sir. You were doing 65. That's a £80 on-the-spot fine please.

Motorist: But Officer, it's dead of night, there's not any other traffic in sight, it's a ten-lane highway and it's well lit.

Motorcycle traffic cop: Yes, Sir, and if I was fortunate enough to afford a car like yours, I would probably be going too fast my self, but the law's the law, Sir, £80 please.

...

Motorist: I'm sorry Officer, I know this is a 40 mph zone and I know I was doing over 60, but it's dead of night, there's not any other traffic in sight, it's a ten-lane highway and it's well lit.

Motorcycle traffic cop: No worries Sir. I'm just stopping you to tell there's been a bad accident two miles down the road. Nice car you have Sir. I would probably be going too fast myself if I had one like it. Have a safe journey. Good night.

I think it's generally accepted to break a 3rr if it is to combat vandalism, however, I wouldn't like to put it to the test and get myself blocked. As an admin (and indeed any editor), the best approach would probably be to withdraw from the edit war, report it to a noticeboard, and let other uninvolved admins sort it out. With exception of gross and blatant misuse of tools that would lead to an arbcom decision to desysop, there should really be no need for admins to block each other without seeking a solution through discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete and re-create

Hello Kudpung. I have noticed something rather odd. I can see a deletion log that tells me that on 14 June at 01:39 you speedy deleted an article called Debiganj Riverview Girl's High School. (As far as I recall, this was an article created by User:Desibau.) Four hours later, Desibau appears to have created a new article with the same title and the same inadequate amount of information - see Debiganj Riverview Girl's High School. I assume such is not within the rules of Wikipedia. Dolphin (t) 03:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If you look at the article's log (link in the top left hand corner of the history page), you'll see that I deleted the article as ‎ A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Debiganj Girls' High School. You are right, the article should not be recreated with out discussing with the deleting admin, and Debiganj Riverview Girl's High School can be deleted again under the same CSD A10. If there is a dispute over the correct page name, it should be discussed on the article talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your information. Dolphin (t) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If it turns out that a consensus is reached on the talk page of Debiganj Girls' High School, that Debiganj Riverview Girl's High School is the preferred name, then the article can be moved to that name. If however that deleted article is protected against recreation, then an admin will have to do it for you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

reply

I replied on my talk page. Cheers! --ragesoss (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ping.--ragesoss (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation request

Hi! Found you in the translators list and was wondering if you could help me place an English to French translation request for Korkoro to make its content usable in the French version. Thanks. _morelMW^illiam 07:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, but I already have a backlog of items to translate from French to English for the enWiki. You could try looking for someone on the French Wiki at http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Projet:Traduction/*/Lang/en for English to French. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I already contacted a translator there and placed the request. _morelMW^illiam 07:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Which recent edit?

Hello Kudpung, you added this message to my talk page. To which edit were you referring - I can't find the revert? Twopenneth (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I can't find it in the histories now either. I had a lot of windows and tabs open yesterday because of the poor connection, and then FireFox went and crashed and I lost the cache. It could well have been a rare error on my part and the message might have been meant for someone else. If it was, please ignore it and accept my apologies. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it then. Thanks for the clear reply. Twopenneth (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

signpost?

Having a hard time finding the article you referto?TCO (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Golly, you'll have to go back a while, around August last year? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

here it http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin_stats --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Good, basically. I think we have enough moderators. With automation and spreading of vandal fighting, so much admin stuff is not neededed. Wish more and more of the need for them would go away.TCO (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with all the traditional encyclopedic articles mostly already written, and with the exponential growth of connectivity throughout the entire English speaking world, 80% of the 1,000 or so new articles that arrive each day have to be deleted. And deletion is actually only a small part of the work admins do. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO, you must have missed the bit tonight (reported on AN/I) where a vandal modified a high-use template to cover hundreds of pages in images of feces and swastikas. We need clueful people willing to tackle that nonsense; all the brilliant prose in the world is of no use to anyone if it's literally buried in shit. 28bytes (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO, with nearly 10,000 edits and participation in 26 RfA (mostly opposed , but apparently rightly so), what's stopping you from running for adminship yourself ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a bunch of work, plus I don't really get the "want to be a moderator" thing. I have more the "want to troll" thing. All that said, Wiki actually has something more constructive than all the other forums, since there are articles being created that are sometimes (say at GA+) very helpful.TCO (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nota bene: Consensus appears to be that admins can't moderate. (See Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking_for_incivility.) So using the term "moderator" is inaccurate. --Danger (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, stop doing that, Kudpung. Keep your terms straight. Don't want to have to explain ban-block to you. aTCO (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now blocked TCO for impersonating a badger. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean banned right? That's what the mods call it on the other forums I go to.  ;)TCO (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See: User:Kudpung/Wikipedia is not a forum. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your help & links much appreciated

Just wanted to say thank you for going out of your way to assist. Especially appreciated your thoughtfully providing links. I will proceed cautiouly and with respect. Thank you, and good evening.

CentralAbe (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Central Abe in regard to the Robina Suwol Bio

You're welcome. If at any time you would like further help or advice, please don't hesitate to ask me directly here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Untitled, unsigned new post

wtf dude why did you delete my page. i was about to work on it and you deleted it. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Joel_cull — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiveturkeyyy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the clear instructions at the top of this talk page. Read also how to format and sign your posts and to be kind enough to include a measure of civility in them. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 8:14 pm, Today (UTC+7)

Rockman Chaos

Please, restore deleted Rockman Chaos page, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง.The source of this article has detected - http://info.sonicretro.org/Rockman_Chaos Look , read and restore!

Loves, Soniccis

Hi. Please read the clear instructions at the top of this talk page. Read also how to format and sign your posts, and be careful not to delete the messages from other editors.

I have reviewed the source you cited and unfortunately I find this not to be sufficient to assert notability per WP:RS. The article also needs a complete rewrite to remove you own personal comments, addressing the reader as 'you', and removing the 'How to' instructions. I suggest you rewrite the article in your user space, and ask me to review it when you think it is ready for moving to main space. You can click this red link to get started: User:Soniccis/Rockman Chaos (draft).
Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง!Please, if you going to "repair" Soniccis's pages - DO NOT DELETE THAT PAGES!!!

Loves, Wikipedia Site Administration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniccis (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page archiving dispute

As an admin with an interest in education related articles, can I ask you to take a look at Talk:New_College_of_the_Humanities#Talk_page_archiving? We have an editor who is exhibiting classic WP:OWN behaviour. One thing that needs sorting is consensus on auto-archiving the talk page. The original user set it to 7 days with no discussion. There are those of us who think it shouldn't be turned on yet but the user presses ahead and does it anyway despite Miszabot stating clearly that it should only be turned on where consensus exists. Perhaps you could take a look and add your two cents or (should you feel it is necessary) set people (on either side of the argument) straight? Thanks. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I prefer not to get involved because there may be users in that discussion with whom I might have had disagreements in the past about unilateral handling of situations during debates and I don't want it to look as if I were taking sides.. It's a fairly lively page and there could well be a cause for auto archiving, but avoid making unilateral decisions yourself or getting involved in an edit war. Clearly if the bot requires a consensus, this could be established by a simple straw poll on the talk page thus:

Users who want 7 days

• User:John Doe

Users who want 14 days

• User:Fred Bloggs

Users who want 3 weeks

• User:John Doe

Users who want 4 weeks

• User:Jane Doe
• User:Hans Dampf

If there is no clear choice among the above suggestions (or longer), take the mean average of what they wanted rounded up or down to the nearest 7 days, and suggest they agree on that. You can copy and paste the above example on the talk page if you wish (less the imaginary !voters). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems like a reasonable idea. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 17:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (Task force WP:RFA2011 update). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• lzarian16 - User does not exist.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 08:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

re: Request for stats

In reply to your Request for stats on my talkpage I am sorry to say that I cannot provide any of the information. I personally don't create statistics, I merely create graphs from data provided by Erik Zachte's statistics (http://stats.wikimedia.org). HenkvD (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Don;t ever move my dramatics

kay? TCO (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. All registered users are free to !vote and comment at RfA. I would have thought that from your recent participation at WPRFA2011, you would be in support of our goals to reduce the drama. If you disfavour the move I have made, you are welcome to discuss it through formal channels. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I SUPPORT reducing dramatics. Of others. As it makes mine stand out in comparison. Capisce Siamese Britisher?  ;) TCO (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Carmen Reid (article proposed for deletion)

Hello Kudpung

You left a message on my talk page saying that the article I wrote, Carmen Reid, has been proposed for deletion. This is my first Wikipedia article, but I read the guidelines before writing it, and included two reliable sources so I don't understand why you did this. Have I missed something? Please can you explain what is going on and what should be done in order to prevent the article being deleted. Raziya88 (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung

I noticed that the boxed text saying the article would be deleted instructed me to remove the box once the article had at least one reliable source. Unless I am misunderstanding something, the article already had two reliable sources, so I removed the box. If this is wrong, can you explain, because as far as I can see I've followed all the instructions. I still don't understand why the article was proposed for deletion in the first place. Raziya88 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raziya. I can understand your confusion, but the short answer is that your article isn't referenced at all. Actually it's not so difficult; what you must do is read all the blue links in the welcoming message I wrote on your talk page and you'll find all your questions answered as if by magic. But before you do that, just take a look a biography I wrote myself to day. Yes, it's also about an author, a French one. Now that's what your article needs to look like. We need more than just one line then a list of books, and telling the reader to go find more on another web site. WE at Wikipedia are the best information! WE are factual, and we don't report anything that was made up. Here, take a look: Dominique Mainard. And when you've read that go to this: User:Kudpung/Article deletion, because I think it's a bit clearer than most of our explanations. Then, when you've done all that and if you still need some help, just come back here, but do check what time it is where I live by looking at the instruction box at the top of this page - you might have to wait until tomorrow for an answer! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand. You say my article isn't referenced, but it is.

I looked at the article you wrote on Dominique Mainard. You say "Now that's what your article needs to look like", but my article DOES look like your article!

Today I wanted to find out what books Carmen Reid had written, and when they were published. This is the sort of information I expected to find on Wikipedia, but I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia has no page on Carmen Reid. So I created an account and created the page myself. The article contains all the information I wanted to know. It tells you who Carmen Ried is, what books she has written, which books belong to which series, when they were published, where I got this information from, and a link to Carmen's website. This is more informative than not having an article at all, and I'm sure it will be helpful to some people, so to my mind it is worth doing.

You say the article should include extra information in order to avoid being deleted but you don't say what information!

You say that Wikipedia articles should be factual and not made up. My article is factual. Nothing in is is made up. I included sources for the information in the article.

I have read your essay about article deletion and I have read the links in the welcome message and as far as I can tell there is nothing about my article that is in contravention of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.

I may be a new user but I am not a fool. I realise that there are some people on the internet who think it's funny to annoy other people and waste their time. I don't understand how anyone can read the article I wrote, which includes a section detailing the sources I used, and say that it is made up and that it includes no references. To be clear - I am starting to suspect that you are a troll! If you're not a troll, then you're not making much sense to me!

If you genuinely believe that my article ought to be deleted then please could you READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE and explain SPECIFICALLY what you think is wrong with it before nominating it for deletion. Raziya88 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Me again. I thought I would give you a hand and kick start the article for you, but I came up against a big problem: Carmen just does not meet our rules for biographies. I can't find any sources that show she's important enough. None of her books appear to have won any major prizes, and she does not seem to have been famous enough to have articles written about her in important newspapers or magazines, or a documentary about her on TV. She simply fails to meet our criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Still, you've got ten days to find some reliable sources. Don't forget that to prove she's written all those books, you must include the publisher's name and the ISBN. Good luck :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

REPOSTED AFTER KUDPUNG DELETED IT! Raziya88 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Well you have a point there. I wasn't aware of the specifics of Wikipedia's notability criteria. A quick google uncovered a long article about her books in the Times, and there are also three short interviews with her in Scottish newspapers that have been published online. I'm surprised you couldn't find these newspaper articles - it took me five minutes! Although it's somewhat subjective I wouldn't personally say that this makes her notable enough, according to those gudelines. So I accept that you have the right to delete the article on notability grounds. Raziya88 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to help you, I've even placed the one required proper reference on it to prevent it being deleted immediately, but it appears I've wasted a lot of my time. You cannot possibly have followed all those links in that short time, read the bio I wrote today, and noticed the changes I made on your page, otherwise you would have learned what is specifically wrong with it. What's wrong is that there is nothing out there to prove that Carmen is a special author notable enough for an article here per WP:AUTHOR - just having written a few books is not enough, and we don't allow people's own web sites as sources, or tell our readers to go and get the rest of the information at Amazon. Did you compare the way I formated the book list in italics, with dates and publishers, and book prizes? Did you se how I cited the references? Please read the instructions as I suggested, and then this to find out WP:SOURCE, WP:CITE, WP:MOS, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, and the next step may be WP:AfD where the community will decide if your article stays if you can't meet them. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I admitted above that Carmen Reid does not, in my opinion, meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and said that I have no objection to the article being deleted. What reason could you possibly have for deleting that post of mine? Presumably to make me look unreasonable. You also deleted the references I put on the page, substituting them for a reference to an article that is NOT about Carmen as an author, or about her books. Why would you do that? Presumably because you want to make my article look more poorly referenced than it actually was. As soon as you said that Carmen did not meet the specific notability criteria for authors (which I was previously unaware of) I researched this and agreed with you. I read most of the articles on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that you linked to BEFORE writing the article. Wikipedia does allow people's own websites as sources for biographical information about them. I saw nothing to say that Wikipedia cannot reference Amazon as a source of information about a book. Using "note-style" references is not mandatory for short articles - it is sufficient to state your sources. I would suggest that you read the policies and guidelines and pay attention to what they actually say - but I'm sure you don't care - you are just having fun baiting the newbie, right?

I don't care whether my article is deleted or not, and I'm sure that even if I were to try and improve it you would do your best to try and get it deleted - and succeed. I admit that the article fails on notability.

I had heard that Wikipedians could be hostile to new users, but I really didn't expect this sort of deliberate trolling. Raziya88 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You did take a look at the edit history of course and see the time I spent on it for you? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Stats

FYI - I'm making some progress on the stats, but it's fairly slow going. There are hundreds of thousands of articles that are created over a 6-month period, so certain parts of the analysis take several hours to complete. It also doesn't help that I'm learning SQL on the fly while I do this... ;) Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about it. Should have something concrete in a few days. I'll keep you updated. —SW— ^gab 21:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that these stats needn't delay the start of the trial. The data is always there and can be analyzed at any time, before or after the start of the trial. —SW— ^yak 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? That's what 'I' said ;) BTW, I didn't make up the list of starts we require - you can thank Protonk for that. I personally think a month's worth would do it, but I'm looking for a good reason to run the trial for as long as possible, we don't wanat another fisco like pending changes. I think the resistance we are getting from the WMF to help with the sts is because thy are all m busy with the outreach programme that kind of clashes with our new rule. Getting info on the deleted pages will not be so easy, though I would not have thought it would be necessary to read the pages just to know how many were deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Figuring out how many were deleted isn't hard, the part where it gets complicated is figuring out whether the editor who created the article was autoconfirmed at the time, whether they continued editing, whether they got blocked, etc. I'm on the right track though and getting close to getting some actual stats. Right now I'm close to having a daily list of every article that was created in from January 1 through May 31, with the user who created it and whether the article has been deleted. Now I just need to test each one for the editor's autoconfirmed status, etc., and then compile stats from that info. Since I've kept all the information separated by day, I should be able to create graphs which show how the different stats have evolved over time. —SW— ^confess 18:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work SW. have you had a look at Blade's talk page. We need to decide what to do about the existing discussion that's in a blocked admin's user space: a) Move it and use it, adding my proposal to the bottom of it. or b) Start a new one in Wikipedia:xxxxx space; or c) creating a page for it as a sub page of the RfC that got the consensus. AFAICS,all these are possible, but I don't really want to ruffle any feathers, especially those of Protonk who can be derogatory at times. What do you think? We need to let people know about it without infringing WP:CANVASS, but it must not be allowed to become a platform for those who opposed the original RfC - and unfortunately, that is already happening. I think it's fair to assume that almost every deleted new article is the product of an new, non autoconfirmed user, but of course like we need sources for everything around here, we need the stats to prove it. TYose who get blocked do so because they won't read the rules; persistently recreate the deleted article, or start edit wars. That's why we need to know also how many new editors get blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started a preliminary stats page at User:Snottywong/Article creation stats. I've found some evidence that there might be some inaccuracies in the statistics, so I haven't posted them all yet (and even the ones that I have posted may not be 100% accurate). I'm going to do some double-checking to make sure things are accurate, and then I'll post the rest of the stats. For now, please don't distribute these stats widely or rely on them for anything important, because they may change. —SW— ^chat 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done. I wonder what that huge spike is. Were there really 9,000 articles posted in one day? We don't need to publish these stats with the trial RfC, but we can state our rational with sentences such as:

• From Jan through June 2001 xx;x% of articles created by autoconfirmed users were deleted.
• From Jan through June 2001 xx.x% of articles created by non autoconfirmed users were deleted.
• From Jan through June 2001 xx.xx of all articles created were deleted.
• From Jan through June 2001 xx.xx of non autoconfirmed new users were blocked.

etc, and so on for all the other stats. In fact as previously mentioned, in fact in the debate for the trial, which is strictly only on its duration, we don't even need to mention stats, remember, the consensus is already for the change in the creation rule - we can mention the stats as an when someone asks for them. We don't want the whole thing turned in to an endless discussion on the stats, and that's what will happen when the detractors start chiming in - need to address this psychologically based on RfC experience in general. We also need a clear consensus among ourselves now to either move that discussion from the user's user space, or start a completely new one based on my draft. I think we have the consensus, but it's spread among your, Blade's and my talk pages. This needs to be done very soon. How long do you need to address the other stats we we need, and what about the ones you thought you would need admin access for? I'm going to be out of town for the next few days with limited Internet (leaving in 2 hours). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just got a note on my talkpage; the preliminaries look good, and seem to bolster our position here. However, I also want to echo the above; we can't get too bogged down now in talking about statistics. The ultimate goal is to get this change implemented as quickly as possible, and to go from there. These will be good further down the road, though, when we make the case for keeping this in place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you comment on what you think we should about placing the proposal in the right place, and which draft it should contain? Thanks.

The revised draft in your sandbox is what I'd like to go with. As for the placement; if it was closer to the end of the RfC, I'd definitely say that creating it as a subpage there would be the best option. We could still do that, but I doubt it'd get the necessary attention; the alternative is to 1. create it in someone's userspace or 2. create it as another subpage of WP:VPR and transclude it onto the main page. 2 will probably get a lot of attention, but that carries with it the risk of turning into a thousand-headed hydra (to crib from Beeblebrox), so a userspace draft (of a non-blocked user) would be best. Snottywong's would seem to make the most sense, since he has all the stats in his userspace already and that's as central a location as any, but I offer up my own userspace if necessary. I'm still open to suggestions, though; I'm not completely deadset on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never been too sure about the 'legality' of user space vs project space. That's why I moved WP:RFA12011 out of my sub pages as quickly as possible. Let's not forget either that the blocked user unilaterally move-deleted the very first draft of this from my user space to their own, just to abandon Wikipedia afterwards. I don't want to ruffle any feathers because there a re some comments that were added to that draft and I' not sure if they are still to be used or not.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving the draft in Rd232's userspace into a subpage of the original RfC, putting your revised proposal there, and putting something on WP:CENT and/or a note on all the village pump pages might work, although that also runs the risk of turning into a free-for-all. But that's the best I can think of, for now The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I should be able to get the rest of the stats updated tomorrow. This will include any accuracy updates to the current stats, as well as more stats on how many non-autoconfirmed users created new articles, how many of them made no other edits after their articles were deleted, and how many eventually became autoconfirmed after their article was deleted. I may not be able to get stats about blocked users done by tomorrow, unless I can figure out why my code to get those stats is so slow. It turns out I don't need admin access to compile any of these stats. I'll leave the decision on where/how to make the proposal up to you guys, as I'm not familiar with the history of it. You definitely don't want to attract too much attention to it, and you'll want to strongly stress multiple times that it has already been decided that this trial will take place in a prior RfC, and that the trial is only to decide how to implement it, not to argue again about whether or not it should be implemented. Userspace doesn't strike me as an appropriate place for a proposal like this. Once the stats are complete, feel free to move the stats page out of my userspace to wherever you feel it will be best located. —SW— ^verbalize 01:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably no need to move it. Your stats page can be transcluded to the RfC.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Stats updated and some new stats posted. I'll work on getting the stats on blocked users now. —SW— ^confer 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've figured out how to get the blocked user stats in a timely manner. The stats will be updated and completed by tomorrow. Let me know if there are any other relevant stats that you think are missing from the page. —SW— ^comment 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I did some digging and took a look at the original RfC. My opinion would be to create a subpage of the original RfC, like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial implementation. —SW— ^babble 23:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again SW. Yes I agree with your idea for the location - I think most of us think that would be the best place. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. I agree. Rivertorch (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, done with the stats. I added the blocked user stats as well as some other graphs which might be of interest. Be sure to let me know if anything is missing, and let me know when you start the discussion regarding the specifics of the trial period. Thanks. —SW— ^prattle 16:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

trial start

I have moved the discussion on the trial duration from a user's space to Wikipedia RfC and restarted it after a month of stagnation. It has been listed at the VP as an RfC and it is hoped that this time round there will be more participation and a focused discussion. There will be separate discussions for the necessary changes to the site software and the interface messages. Thanks for the help you have all provided, especially with the stats. Let's get it over and done with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by the wording. It sounds as though the 30-day discussion period will run concurrently with the statistics being gathered for comparison. Shouldn't the discussion begin after the stats are gathered? Trial → gather stats → discuss should be the order, imo. Feel free to move this to the RfC talk page if you think it belongs there instead. I'm pressed for time and going offline now. Rivertorch (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right. However, now that we have created the scripts and bots and have done the stats for the last 6 months, it will only take a day to run the scripts again and create overlapping graphs. That still leaves a whole 30/31 days for a full RfC discussion on what to do with the results.Also, I am personally expecting to see the reduction in spam, vandalism, hoax, nonsense, and attack pages reflect a dramatic reduction from day 1 of the trial and the bots can monitor and record this on a daily basis if SN has the time. We absolutely must avoid this trial duration RfC becoming a re-debate of the new policy, or people using it in an attempt to stave off the inevitable. nevertheless , after the trial the metrics could reveal that the new policy is a flop. So be it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It'll probably take a couple of days to see the full effect (after implementation, we'll have to clean out the last 30 days, which could take a while), but that's more or less what I think as well. More to come at the RfC itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

All right, then. I'll go offer my grudging support. (Btw, time for an archive here, perhaps? Your talk page is vast and growing ever vaster.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you around?

I noticed you've done a couple of edits...

There's a WP:LIBEL issue on a school article. I've e-mailed in, but nothing has happened so far. Starting to be concerned that the address is wrong/etc. If you're on, can you delete some edits from a history? -danjel (talk to me) 05:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Spent 3 hours last night patiently trying to help a newb and then I get called a troll. That's libelous enough! Give me a link and I'll look into it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. :) 'Tis a thankless job.

Bellarine Secondary College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I removed a statement in my edit [[1]]. The content was initially added at an IP's edit [[2]].

I don't know anything about the situation, but I'm sure that a teacher doesn't want that said about him anywhere subject to google. -danjel (talk to me) 05:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing you need to do about it. Its content is not described in the ES, so it should be OK. I'll keep my eye on the Ip and there is one more single vandalism I'll block. However, the article has a whole host o problems and I'm now in the middle of doing a slash 'n burn on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've rev del'd ir anyway. This is the first time I've done this, I hope I did it right! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You might also need to remove: [[3]] and [[4]] because the diffs contain the problematic content.

That's true, the article needs a lot of work. Don't worry about it if you've got other things to do... I'll get to it eventually. Cheers. -danjel (talk to me) 06:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Trinity Catholic School

Hi Kudpung, you left the discussion at Talk:Trinity Catholic School#Content hanging in the air rather. You made an allegation about a revertion, but have failed to respond to my follow-up comments and question. Have you realised that you were mistaken? Do you plan to try to justify your action? Would you mind if I tidied up your last edit, or even reverted it? It seems rather unfair of you to leave the discussion with no further justification or retraction. I'm anxiously awaiting your response so that I can decide how best to proceed. Twopenneth (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please remember that I'm in a very different time zone and occasionally I cat nap between editing ;) I have examined this issue and I find that I did indeed make an error - I had several windows open and I assumed your edit summary about your edits being 'stomped on' to refer to an edit I had made; I was mistaken, please accept my apologies. Nevertheless, I have withdrawn from further editing or intervention concerning these two articles as the issues are becoming contentious and I feel I should let neutral parties take over. I have notified coordinators of the projects under whose aegis the articles fall. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for replying; perhaps you could add something similar to the article's talkpage at Talk:Trinity Catholic School#Content. :-) Twopenneth (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion

This response surprised me, so I thought I would solicit a second opinion from a seasoned NPPer before replying. 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ouch! NPP is in an even far worse state than we all thought it was. Goodness knows what they have been doing but they've clocked up 15,000 edits in 7 months and should know better. Seems to have quite a few problems. Try them with links to WP:NPP and WP:CSD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Antony Powell

Yes, I agree, it could be read as a personal attack, and I did consider changing the CSD. I am glad it is gone, thank you. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Adminship requirements

Why do all candidates for RfA mention something about creating lots of articles for GA or DYK? Adminship deals with deletion more than creation. And why is a high automated tool usage bad for an RfA? Destroying vandals and page protecting are both automated. Blocking is semi-automated. Having high automated tool usage and excellent deletion nominations and vandalism destroying accuracy should help an RfA, or is there something I'm missing? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 04:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll find all the answers to exactly those questions, directly addressed, in WP:WPSCH and its sub pages and their talk pages. You're looking for a chauffeur right? So four turn up at the interview. One has been driving for twenty years and done around 1.2 million miles and has had one very minor accident. Another has been around for three years and has done 60,000 miles, accident free. The third one says "I've had a driving licence for years, I'm an car mechanic - I've repaired thousands of cars." The fourth driver says "Oh, I don't actually do much driving - the cars I drive have an on-board computer that I programme for each trip, and then I sleep while the car is moving. I do actually drive a car occasionally - like when I go for a burgher or a six-pack." Which one will you hire? The question is not rhetorical, but I don't need to know your answer. FWIW, I don't personally have any DYK - I still can't figure out what they're good for, I only have 5 GA, and I've only created around 60 full-page, complete articles. What I can most definitely say is that had I not done that, I would never have accrued enough experience in all areas to become an admin. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: You might also find this interesting. t was written long before I ever got involved in RfA reform or considered becoming an admin. BTW: blocking is not atomated, it needs a very human decision. Only the complex process of placing all the templates and implementing the actual software block are automated. CorenBot is excellent for catching COPYVIO but has a lot of false positive, for example from sites that copy Wikipedia content. Page protecting is not automated, except in so far as implementing the actual software lock, and needs a considered human decision. Bots can catch some vandalism based on parameters that have been entered into their databases but they do not catch them all, and there are a lot of false positives. For those who take their !voting and/or candidadacy seriously, the major focus at RfA is on demonstrating accuracy of work, people management, and civility. Many of those who think they are doing a great job, and helping newbies etc., unfortunately do not demonstrate a sufficiently high level of skill, and some tend to think that Wikipedia is a game, or a pastime for younger people. There are a lot of old-fashioned, mature, highly qualified contributors - 8% of the regulars have a PhD, and an even larger number of them have bachelor and master degrees. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I could've been clearer; when I was mentioning blocking and page protecting being mostly automated it was from a Huggler's view. And then I read your criteria and saw the part about 150,000 AIV reports, which answered my question more. Thank you. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(Patiently begins waiting for the further and/or additional reply) --The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FireFox crashed as I was posting it and I lost it. Sorry for messing you about. It was something on the lines of 150,000 Huggle edits being no big deal. They can be done at a rate of one every 15 seconds - and often are, which demonstrates that not all the required research is being done. Vandalism reverts for example, are often a false positive. At RfA a high number of auto edits is OK provided the candidate shows a sufficient number of manual edits that need careful consideration and judgement, and contribution to article content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Content

OMG Kudpung! Sorry! I didn't realise :S I'm on my stupid IPod on Wikipedia, and when I am on my watchlist, I press the "diff" button...and instead of it pressing that, it presses the "Rollback" button instead. Again, sorry! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I just undid your latest change, as it appears that you accidentally removed MuZemike's block note in an editing mistake.

Please feel free to readd your comment if you can avoid accidentally deleting someone else's ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if it is a day for everyone making innocent slips of a mouse :) Thanks for the heads up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: I can't find the diff to see what I did - I can't recall having any reason to edit his page - can you give me a link please? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Seems I have a problem with oversensitivity of my Magic Trackpad. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have been clearer, it was your comment on ANI itself, this one. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, and I see the edit didn't record my post. Thanks again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Obare awora

Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Obare awora to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Trinity logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Trinity logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The file has been orphaned because a new file has been uploaded. It's not needed anymore and can be deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Tomas e's talk page.
Message added 16:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cars (franshise) not finished

Hello. This is TAR2C. I was still working on the page Cars (franschise) and I had alot of other information I was going to use. I do understand why the page was tagged for speedy deletion. Can you give me another 24 hours? I'd like to finish the page. Thanks!

TAR2C — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAR2C (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. We already have an article on it. Please read properly the deletion notice on your talk page even if it is a bit long, and remember to sign your talk page messages. Feel free to expand the existing article. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India

Sigh! See my comments at Talk:Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India#Article moved back from user space. I wash my hands of it. I've notified two relevant projects, perhaps they can do something with it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Never mind, both the article and the talk page have now been re-userfied by another admin. See User talk:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Have you ever worked in India? I have. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• My quixotic self got the best of me. I left a detailed critique at User talk:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India re what must be done. I'm not sure they realise that the article requires a complete re-write rather than tacking on random irrelevant references and changing a few headings. But at least there's a clear benchmark. We'll see... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Quixotic? Nope, you were just doing what I would have done - if I had the time ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)