User talk:Kudpung/Archive May 2017

In regard to American Jewish Anti-Bolshevism

Elimnist56 (talk)

Thank you for your quick review. I would like to make the edits that you suggest, but I have some questions before I can do so well. This article was proposed for deletion because of "Original research and synthesis - including probable copied and pasted content - from one source." I definitely do lean on a 4 sources. If I expand this list, would that help? More important and I think more central to proposed deletion is that it appear copied and pasted from specific texts and that it appears to be synthesis. I can demonstrate that it is not copied and pasted, but how can I demonstrate that it is not synthesis?

Thank you for you time! Elimnist56 (talkElimnist56 (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Here

...should you care to read, is my response to the tagging Noticeboard issue, in which you recently expressed opinion. For fairness, and completeness. Your initial reply seems to have been based on a one-sided view of the matter, and so take a read if you care to understand all perspectives on this, in future. Cheers, ราตรีสวัสดิ์. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Your posting there, Leprof 7272, after the close, was TL;DR and I didn't bother (along with, I imagine, many others) to read it. My concerns with your editing are not only about the current issue but also about AfC which raised concerns expressed by editors such as DGG and Primefac in the long discussion at AfC. The community has spoken and I hope you will observe the outcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Rachelberkeley (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)== in regard to the Miks C-Kellman article ==

Hi, thanks for your comment. I have been studying the work of Miks C-Kellman for the past years. He is an inspirational figure and has impacted the lives of thousands of people across Europe and India. He truly needs a Wikipedia page. Doing a research on his work has also helped to do my university thesis. A lot of information on him is available in Latvian or Indian local languages, but a lot is also being produced in English. I am working on providing more and more references on daily basis and the milestones of his achievements. Thank you for reviewing the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelberkeley (talk • contribs) 06:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

For article SVGV

agasfamily Hi Kudpung , thank you so much for your review and advice, I wish the page i created stays for their supporters, And I think they meet the Criteria for musicians and ensembles 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country and 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

I will try to find the proof and update page today. thanks again to give me opportunity to develop.

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Boleyn. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kyara, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have left an appropriate comment on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

in regard to the Miks C-Kellman article

Thanks! I have reviewed the article again and have done some edits! Will do more today. The article clearly demonstrate notability through numerous, independent, in-depth sources.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks. Rachelberkeley (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Afua Richardson Page

Hi, I respectfully request a clarification on exactly what you would like for me to add to Afua Richardson's page to satisfy your request for sources. I added multiple sources from legitimate sites and linked to other Wiki pages that are not in question. I am currently working with Afua for personal information to fill out the rest of the sections about her life, but she is very busy as a professional artist and cannot spend loads of time on it. I apologize if I am coming across as upset, I am just confused. Help me clear things up. Thanks.

ShaneomaticShaneomatic (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Pleas see the COI notice on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have read the COI page thoroughly, and I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to trigger a conflict in this case. What follows is my reasoning, please feel free to comment. 1. While it is true that I have met the page's candidate (Afua Richardson) in person, everything that is posted can be backed by citation from outside sources or a simple Google search. The impetus for the page came from her recent rise in popularity with the two largest comic book companies in the world, Marvel and DC. I felt that any artist getting work with both of those companies deserved a page of his or her own. 2. I am not being paid or compensated in any way to produce the page nor have I ever worked with or for the candidate in any capacity. 3. The candidate did not approach me to create the page, though once I approached her she agreed to assist with basic biographical information when able. 4. I feel that I am capable of exercising judicious skepticism and avoiding bias in all materials posted. I hold a Master's degree in History and have done scholarly work in the fields of history and religion for over a decade. I currently work as an instructor of history at a nationally accredited university in the States, and before that I taught History, Bible, and English at an accredited high school.

Again, please clarify the specific errors that exist on the page so that I may work towards editing them. Shaneomatic (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I happened to see this, & cannot resist a comment: Shaneomatic, it is very far from the case that "any artist getting work with both of those companies deserved a page of his or her own. " The work has to be notable enough that there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. There is nothing in the article to indicate that. The refs are trivial. As an academic myself (and so Kudpung is also), I've observed that some academics never really understand our differences--a higher degree--even if it is a PhD not a Masters-- gives a certain amount of authority in an academic setting, but at WP all editors are equal and must justify their work the same as everyone else. If you think there are sufficient sources, the place to make the argument is at the AfD, not here. Kudpung merely nominated--the community will decide. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

amending the article - proposed to be deleted

Hi Kudpung, I am still willing to try to improve, could you clarify that only articles by others dedicated to this person are therefore accepted as reliable sources? There are numerous books that mention him or are in dialogue with him (zizek in primis) - would these references be considered notable? I assume that endorsments from the book cover or the publisher's webpage are not acceptable? Many thanks.Ananke83 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Ananke83

PS - just reading through the rules, would not WP:PROF simply apply in this case? He was one of the youngest profs a few years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananke83 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Further queries / comments: 1. As an example of in-depth coverage of Chiesa's work, see Slavoj Zizek's "Disparities" (Bloomsbury, 2016), pp. 348-362. https://books.google.co.uk/books id=H8DcDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=disparities+zizek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilvpvfuNnTAhWJBsAKHSggBg8Q6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Chiesa is also mentioned on the back cover of the book along with Brandom, Pippin, Zupancic, Johnston, Malabou, Kristeva, Shakespeare, Schiller, and Beckett. 2. With a quick search, I have found at least ten books published by major academic publishers that engage with and quote Chiesa's work (see a sample below). This does not include journal articles and independent reviews of his work. Lacan and the Concept of the 'Real' https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DSzk79OE488C&pg=PT13&dq=%22lorenzo+chiesa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx4v6zvtnTAhUqIsAKHZDDCTI4HhDoAQhOMAY#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false Prolegomena to Any Future Materialism https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RfN7bqU-OhcC&pg=PR17&dq=%22lorenzo+chiesa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU49HjvtnTAhVYOMAKHVoGB3k4MhDoAQg4MAQ#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false

 Reply|

Today, 21:06 You In terms of Chiesa's "notability", please, consider the following:

1. As an example of in-depth coverage of Chiesa's work, see Slavoj Zizek's "Disparities" (Bloomsbury, 2016), pp. 348-362.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H8DcDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=disparities+zizek&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilvpvfuNnTAhWJBsAKHSggBg8Q6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Chiesa is also mentioned on the back cover of the book along with Brandom, Pippin, Zupancic, Johnston, Malabou, Kristeva, Shakespeare, Schiller, and Beckett.

2. With a quick search, I have found at least ten books published by major academic publishers that engage with and quote Chiesa's work (see a sample below). This does not include journal articles and independent reviews of his work.

Lacan and the Concept of the 'Real' https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DSzk79OE488C&pg=PT13&dq=%22lorenzo+chiesa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx4v6zvtnTAhUqIsAKHZDDCTI4HhDoAQhOMAY#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false

Prolegomena to Any Future Materialism https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RfN7bqU-OhcC&pg=PR17&dq=%22lorenzo+chiesa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU49HjvtnTAhVYOMAKHVoGB3k4MhDoAQg4MAQ#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false

First Love https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D28htnoJ3D8C&pg=PA23&dq=%22lorenzo+chiesa%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false

Psychoanalysis is an Antiphilosophy https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bkyrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR6&dq=%22lorenzo+chiesa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU49HjvtnTAhVYOMAKHVoGB3k4MhDoAQgtMAI#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false

Agamben and Theology https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lf-dJ37HmTIC&pg=PA195&dq=%22lorenzo+chiesa%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false

Recording Reality, Desiring the Real https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YBWtb8zbNBAC&pg=PR9&dq=%22lorenzo+chiesa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU49HjvtnTAhVYOMAKHVoGB3k4MhDoAQhJMAc#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false

The Parallax View https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=je702bo2Pl8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22lorenzo+chiesa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1tPSTw9nTAhWsAcAKHeJnBUs4ggEQ6AEIRTAH#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false

Derrida and Lacan: Another Writing https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5wWrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR3&dq=%22michael+lewis%22+derrida&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAs8LUxNnTAhVhOMAKHZJADn8Q6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false

Women, Love, and Commodity Culture in British Romanticism https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NfVvxOMabgEC&pg=PA116&dq=%22lorenzo+chiesa%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22lorenzo%20chiesa%22&f=false

3. According to WorldCat Identities, Chiesa has 28 works in 60 publications in 5 languages and 3,613 library holdings

http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2005039934/

4. He is currently a visiting Professor at the European University at Saint Petersburg and was previously Full Professor of Modern European Thought at the University of Kent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananke83 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, finding it difficult to copy and paste - still a novice - apologies for duplication of information.Ananke83 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Ananke83

Hi Kudpung, just to let you know I have done a number of further amendments today on the entry - hopefully addressing your comments. Ananke83 (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Voted Neutral Twice

Just thought I'd let you know that you have voted twice at Pvtmoutside's RfA (Vote numbers: 14 and 15). Thanks! -=Troop=- (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A technical error due to an ec. Thanks for pointing it out, Trooper1005. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick note of thanks for still being the institutional knowledge on NPP despite the fact that you are on a well-deserved break. It is appreciated, and I always think it is appropriate to vocalize that appreciation, especially when the task has sometimes been thankless. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind words Tony. I'm just disappointed that I still have to do even that. AFAICS, the new coords haven't actually done anything at all yet - not even published the results of their election. All the tasks involved in running and coordinating NPP including checking on the work of the admins who accord the rights and maintaining the lists all require time and engagement. They are not however the exclusive domain of any coordinators, anyone can take the initiative. All they need to do is ask me what they have to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, meant to type something yesterday and got pulled away to something else. I'd certainly be willing to have a hand in some of the meta-tasks to help keep things running. I've been pulled in several different directions on Wiki of late, but NPP is certainly in my opinion one of the most important efforts we have, and helping getting it to smooth sailing should be a priority. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Curtain Call Online

Hello Kudpung,

Thank you for flagging up issues for Curtain Call Online. I am extremely new to Wikipedia and how it works, although I have my own page (not curated or created by me). I was trying to make a page for my company that has been running for over two years, is deeply ensconced in the theatre industry in London (just look at the National Theatre's social media pages for past use of our content). I am not trying to us Wikipedia to promote the site, but don't know if the "auditors" on Wikipedia would see the difference. I am happy to be educated, and please believe me that I appreciate yours and everyone else's input. Yours was not the only message I had, so I have obviously done something wrong (which I am not too proud to admit). You have other companies on Wikipedia such as Spotlight and Backstage (magazine - although they are a huge casting website and don't hesitate to mention that in their article) that are on the encyclopaedia.

I look forward to hearing from you, and thank you once again for reaching out.

Kind regards,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSchwab (talk • contribs) 13:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. JohnSchwab. Curtain Call was deleted by admin BigHaz per deletion criterion A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). It also failed to meet the requirements for notability at WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

you deleted me and i rewrote Eight-Constitution Medicine in my words, see..--Solvaram (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Home Lander (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

WORCS Barnstar.

Hello Kudpung,

Now I see, what you meant by “do not expect a miracle”. In the beginning I was really in a puzzle over how, despite all my invitations, inactive was a discussion of the WORCS Barnstar, but then I realized that it is necessary to take into account that this is quite a narrow area of interest and such modest response should be expected. But a very good thing is, that in spite of all difficulties, the subject has been discussed, there was no opposition at all, and some Editors gave their advise (I made an improvement of the Barnstar image accordingly), appreciation and support; therefore I closed the discussion and took WORCS Barnstar to the section Geographic WikiProject Awards, and now WORCS Barnstar is in the row with other Projects Awards Barnstars like Bedfordshire Barnstar, Cornwall Barnstar, Dorset Barnstar, etc. If, in your opinion, to place Template:WikiProject WORCS Barnstar on the Project page is the right thing to do, I can do it. I checked on line and came to objective conclusion, that WORCS Project ranks very high in quality among similar WikiProjects, as it is exceptionally well organized and has a significant number of Featured and Good Articles.

I hope to achieve my goal this year (I think — this autumn): to take a trip to Worcestershire and then to start an article Archaeological Findings, providing the text with quality photos. In my eyes the article, which is not enriched with good photos, loses in its value and, due the absence of visual information, will never have a chance to be promoted to a Good Article; in this regard, I want to improve the visual quality of articles, including those in the creation of which I participated, for which I have or will have a good illustrative material.

When in 2015, during discussion on the Teahouse of my question: “can I use the citation from the book (written by archaeologist) in the article Ancient Corinth, if I can not find this book on line”, I received the answer from one of respectable Senior Editors: " Yes, you can", and at the same time he suggested me to write the article about mentioned archaeologist, as she is notable academic, Director Emeritus of Ministry of Greek Culture and author of numerous books. And I did (with a great help of the other Editor), but this article to this day is rated stub-class; the reasons are: lack of information on line, no response from Greek archaeologists and absence of photos. I would like to contact the Ministry of Greek Culture and ask them to provide me with photos of significant events in the archaeologist Elisavet Spathari career and with photo of herself. So, I want to ask for your advise — if the photos are planned to be placed in the article about a notable living person, should I request to sent me only those photos, which have been already published in the media, or their previous publication doesn’t matter?

Thank you an advance.

Regards, Chris OxfordChris Oxford (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung,

I found the answers for all my questions, in regards to images, in the good source of information, recommended by you.

Thank you very much for this useful link. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Brasserie Ellezelloise

Dear Kudpung, Please could you restore the "speedily deleted" page Brasserie Ellezelloise, which was tagged and removed before there was time to contest the deletion? It was created as part of this exercise, set up in consultation with Wikipedia:School and university projects. MHAN2016 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

MHAN2016, the article was deleted by admin SoWhy in accordance with deletion policy WP:A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject . It also failed to meet notability requirement per WP:ORG. s listed there shows that many more of them will shortly be listed for deletion for not complying with sourcing and notability requirements. The English Wikipedia exercises stricter criteria for inclusion than the French Wikipedia - especially when biographies of living persons are concerned. Wikipedia live article space is not for conducting editing experiments - we put at your disposal several other possibilities for creating articles and perfecting them before they are published. I suggest you discuss these issues with the deleting admin and the people at Wikipedia:School and university projects. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take it up with the deleting admin. I would correct your impression that this was an "editing experiment": it was an attempt to extend the sum total of human knowledge available in English. My understanding of speedy deletion is that it is a tag intended for such things as hoaxes, advertising, and potential libel or invasion of privacy, while a variety of less extreme measures are available for contributions that the reviewer finds unacceptable in other ways. Hence my surprise at the speed with which this innocuous contribution was removed. It's a case where I think WP:BITE might be applicable. MHAN2016 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

MHAN2016, I don't think you fully read my reply above. Firstly, Using your personal talk page as a 'project-centrale' is not appropriate and I am certain that you would not have been advised to do so.. The article in question and many others on that list clearly do not meet the requirements of the English Wikipedia. Any education project is indeed an experiment and should under no circumstances be carried out in live article space without adequate supervision. It is no coincidence that users are provided with individual sandboxes and that a 'Draft' namespace exists (which was created on my initiative some years ago) for preparing articles that are not ready for publication. Under today's problematic environment, all inappropriate, poorly sourced, or non-notable subject will be deleted from mainspace fairly quickly and the onus is not on our other volunteers to rescue such creations.

Our community has been brought to the test in the past by having to spend their volunteer time carrying out massive clean ups of ill conceived educational experiments, and that is not what we volunteers are here for, and we severely lack the manpower to police the mass output from classroom experiments as demonstrated by our 21,000 backlog of new articles to check.. Your understandings already demonstrated clear misunderstanding of several of our policies, especially CSD , but I would understand if you had been misinformed - too many inexperienced users think they are being helpful, but often provide the wrong advice. While I am sure that your education project is being done under the very best of intentions, I am not at all sure that in its present concept and execution it is being actively supported by the sections of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation concerned with such projects. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your kind offer of better advice is gratefully received. I look forward to it. MHAN2016 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

MHAN2016, unfortunately, I have not offered to provide you with better advice. Please read again more attentively what I posted above and consider obtaining advice, and perhaps even collaboration, from the specific departments that have been created to properly manage educational initiatives. If you are perhaps a French speaker and are having problems understanding my posts, I will be happy to explain in French. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry. I don't know why I assumed that all this about wrong advice, inappropriate uses, misunderstanding, etc. was leading up towards good advice, appropriate use, correct understanding, and so on. But thanks anyway. MHAN2016 (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

MHAN2016, As a retired university lecturer on education methodology I used to be active on Wikipedia education projects until they were taken over by paid staff and then run even more poorly. As an admin I now specialise in other areas of Wikipedia. I still ocasionally teach (voliuntarily) Wikipedia editing principles at meet-ups, editathons, and Wikimania conferences. I no longer provide advice here were departments now exist for that specific purpose.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding my speedy deletion tags

Am I allowed to tag articles for speedy deletion that are very clearly vandalism/unsourced? I could just leave the uncertain ones to new page reviewers and I could help tag obvious vandalism. Thanks in advance, Jdcomix (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Jdcomix, As there are still more recent issues with your patrolling for vandalism, it would be best if you would not tag pages at all. Please see the recent comments on your talk page by other admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Denied req. for perm - new page reviewer

Hi, is there any specific reason why my request for new page reviewer perms was denied? I used to do it a lot before the power was required and I'd just like to get back to it. Kadzi (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Four specific reasons, Dr. Kadzi:

• Insufficient experience [1]
• Not reading instructions New Page Reviewer [2]
• Not reading instructions Articles for Creation [3]
• You have never been 'very active' and you have never done it 'lots'. [4]

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like lots to me; what's lots to you? Kadzi (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You've made 65 mainspace edits in nearly two years since your warnings for inaccurate patrolling; Most active vandalism patrollers do more in a day. You won't be getting additional user rights any time soon, so please refrain from persisting and making repeated requests at PERM. Please learn also how to correctly format your talk page messages. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

PROD

Hi, you recently PRODed Dr Rahul Kumar with the rationale that the subject was not notable. Could you please explain why the topic is not notable, and add those reasons to your PROD rationale? Thank you. Linguist^talk|contribs 16:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Linguist111, the PROD sad why the article was not notable: Non notable person. None of the sources are about Kumar and only contain fleeting mentions of his participation in some ghost-hunting events. If you want a refund, you'll have to discuss it with the admin who did the actual deletion, but IMO it will almost certainly end up at AfD and get deleted again Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's okay. Thank you! Linguist^talk|contribs 11:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The University Naval Training Division (UNTD) for deletion ?

If I read your intent correctly from this recently rec'd msg ...

"Hello Wclearihue, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The University Naval Training Division (UNTD) for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)"

I have no idea who you are or what interest or rights attach to you, however I will advise you that I AM the Source/Original Author of the entire content of the subject page.

Best regards,

Bill Clearihue Oakville, ON Archivist and Newsletter Editor UNTD Association of Canada

Wclearihue (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You read correctly. Rights attached to me include vetting new articles for suitability for this encyclopedia and that the content has not been copied from other sources. Some or all of the content in the page you created has been taken from a PDF file at www.cntha.ca/static/documents/mej/mej-80.pdf Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Bordoodle

Hi, I see you have added a PROD to Bordoodle. I also tried a PROD ten days ago but it was removed. I mentioned it on my talk page the other day as I had considered taking it to AfD but as I said there, often it just feels like a waste of time as others, no doubt with the best of intentions, arrive and start adding even more self published or unreliable SEO type sources. Unfortunately, so many dog articles are in a poor state and there are a lot of "designer breeds" like this with more springing up all the time. The registries they refer to are generally of the type "pay us x amount and we'll provide you with a piece of paper". :-( SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out SagaciousPhil, I hadn't noticed that it had already been PRODed. Ive sent it to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. As you can see, an IP is already adding more SEO sites. There's also a lot of synth by combining the American Kennel Club stating the Border Collie and the Poodle are intelligent breeds so a Bordoodle must be extra intelligent. I always despair of this type of article as it's guaranteed all the SEO sites will be used - one of the drawbacks of the internet, I suppose. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

NPR permission request

Hey there! I was wondering if the declination of my NPR permission request was final. Any chance of reconsideration? I've been a good editor since getting unblocked months ago. Getting this permission would allow me to use the curator tools which I can use to monitor unwanted newly-created pages as I've done previously by requesting speedy deletion for hoaxes and poorly written pages.[5][6]

Is there anything I should know/do? - TheMagnificentist 12:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Magnificentist, let me know when you have read the entire tutorials about NPP and the use of the Curation tools. Them I'll ask you a couple of simple questions. Be warned, it's a lot of reading and a steep learning curve . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If I can add an endorsement, TheMagnificentist has improved leaps and bounds since I last significantly interacted with him in December. Although I've not been watching every contribution, when I do see them around I have been positively impressed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment 78.26. Thank you! - TheMagnificentist 17:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've read them, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. I'm ready for the questions. - TheMagnificentist 17:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Diamond Foundry

I just noticed after you deleted this page a log entry showing it was previously erased because it was created by a blocked/banned user in breach of their block. Not familiar with the case. Is the current re-creation related to this? Home Lander (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC) It's a tad suspicious to me that an account that hadn't edited since 2008 suddenly awoke to re-create this page. Taking it to WP:ANI. Home Lander (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Home Lander, I deleted the page at your request: This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because it is holding up a page move that is non-controversial or consensual, for instance reversing a redirect, or removing a disambiguation page that only points to a single link. The page to be moved to this name is Diamond foundry. Reason for move: proper capitalization. See CSD G6. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2017 (UT

Correct. I'm second-guessing assisting with that page move. See my message at WP:ANI. Home Lander (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

BENSLEY Article deletion due to G11

Hi Kudpung, you recently deleted the BENSLEY article due to G11 blatant advertising. Could you help give advice on how to rewrite the article? Which sentences or wording that was incorrect. I mostly paraphrase information from respectable news and magazine sites. I only wish to display information, without sounding like advertising. Ducanhnguyen218 (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ducanhnguyen218, there are several reasons why that article was deleted. The creator of it is blocked for obviously trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. The sources used as references were either spam links to adverts for the resorts created by Bensley, or interviews with Bensley or his own vanity sites. It's going to be very difficult to establish notability for a company that has not done anything extraordinary such as receiving several major awards, made a newsworthy impact on the stock market, or designed a revolutionary product, which have precipitated totally independent, in-depth articles about it in the national and/or international press. I live in Thailand, and while of course I remain completely neutral and dispassionate when I have to delete something, I have seen all the resorts, and there are thousands more in Thailand that are just as unique in their way, and just as expensive. Someone obviously desperately wants a Bensley article in Wikipedia, but I don't think it's going to happen. If you think you can draft a perfectly neutral, non spammy article, and source it with independent critical acclaim without riding on the back of the resorts they have designed, by all means do so, but I would advise creating it first in your user sub page or as a WP:Draft. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Deprod; DJ Diddy

Hi, I deprodded DJ Diddy because I believe that this was a good faith objection to deletion. I have no prejudice against taking to AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sent to AfD.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Putther's page

Hi Kudpung, I was just wondering why you deleted Putther's page? Just to give you a little backstory I'm an Administrator on YouTube Wikia it's like Wikipedia but only for YouTube related pages and I interview YouTubers and post the interviews on YouTube Wikia so I interviewed Putther and then I made him a page on YouTube Wikia and then he asked me if I could make him a Wikipedia page so I did but then I got this message and then you deleted the page, I'm just wondering why other YouTubers have pages on here but Putther can't have a page on here. AidanDunphy (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

AidanDunphy, I understnd, but please see WP:N. Putther may seem notable to you for your criteria for your web site, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and works to very different standards. If there are other YouTubers on Wikipedia with similar lack of notability, the articles may have slipped through the net and should be deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Member's Only / Very Rare

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing my article. I was wondering where exactly on the page should I add a reason for why it is important enough to be in the encyclopedia.

Looks like it got deleted now anyway... thanks for the input!

JahsehDwayneOnfroy (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC) JahsehDwayneOnfroy

re: proposed deletion of Caleb James

Hi Kudpung You have proposed deletion for the page on Caleb James due to promotional reasons. Could you please clarify which part of the article is causing the problem? Is it the external links to the credit list? I have based what I am doing off the Tchad Blake page (which has much of the same approach I have used). Many of the wiki pages I have linked to are other musicians that were produced by Caleb and their pages are similar - but they are not deleted. Just confused and looking for some clarification. Thanks Sleepyjay (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sleepyjay, the PROD notice actually says it all: Purely promotional and full of in-line external spam links. Unsourced and research has found no other sources to support notabilty. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Additionally, notability is not inherited from the artists they have worked with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for review

Hello, Thank you for reviewing my content "Naqeebia" Currently i am creating content on this page. I am still updating this. I had to rush in emergency in between so i left the content in complete.

I will complete it in next couple of hrs. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SajidManzoor (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding to the "Proposed deletion of Northern Sparks (band)"

Good day to you sir/ma'am,

First of all, I wanted to thank you for taking the time on reviewing this new and very first wiki article of mine. Honestly, the main reason why I took the time on creating a wiki page about these guys, which I consider a "rising indie bands from Cagayan de Oro, Philippines" is that, I have been following them for few a few years now. I can see their passion and love for music and I do hope and wish for them to succeed in their musical journey one day. And I want to be one of the witness for that. And I can actually see these guys are getting bigger while they continue their passion. I want let the people here that there's still hope for the OPM (Original Pinoy Music) here in the Philippines, not just in Manila but also in other part of the country. Most artists here are doing a non-original songs or a cover, and these guys are different. They write and perform their own music. And I can hear or see people on their gigs who are admiring and loving them for that. I'm telling you. These guys are something.

So I'm begging you to please let this wiki page/article of "Northern Sparks (band)" retain. Thank you and more power. God bless. :)

Respectfully yours, Johnnydagger69 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Kudpung,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 810 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Green (Investor) deletion reply

Adding them now, your edit conflicted with the citations and content I was adding, hence why it's still barebones. I shall add more between saves in future to prevent this. Kind regards. JackoNonce (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What am I missing...?

Question: S.W.A.T. (2017 TV series) was created by an editor who doesn't have autopatrolled, and was not moved from Draft space, and which has apparently not been patrolled/curated according to the logs, but I'm not seeing the "Mark this page as patrolled" thingie either... So, is this page "patrolled"? Or is this "Mark this page as patrolled" thing somehow hidden?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi IJBall. The page was patrolled on 13 May 2017 by JTtheOG. Tthe Page Curation tool can provide you with all the information you need and more. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah, I'm not using that right now (I've been doing this manually, by preference...). I may look at using the PC tool this summer. But I'm surprised that the tool doesn't leave something in the logs about patrolling the page... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It does, that's where I got it from - and you saw how fast ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion message re. ZippCrowd page

Hi Kudpung,

Thank you for your message. The ZippyCrowd page has not been completed yet - I only started it not knowing that it has to be finished in one hit. I intend to finish work on it by Friday - is that OK and can the deletion notice be removed/postponed that long?

Many thanks,

Mario Balen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.251.130 (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mario. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but it's already been deleted by another admin. Whatever you were to add to it, it will not meet suitability for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain how this comment [7] works to improve the situation. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I take accusations of bullying quite seriously. In my (quite outspoken, it seems) opinion, that whole incident was a mess and not handled as optimally as it could have been. I'm still a bit angry about how it all went down, so perhaps I should take some time and find something else to do for a while. Please forgive me abrupt intrusion onto your talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Sorry, you honestly expected a response to those aspersions? El_C 17:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page Orion (Celtic band)

Well, that was fast and heavy handed IMO. I spent a few hours today in my first attempt at documenting a band that is unique in their combination of Gaelic music from Irish and European influences. Being my first time I was conservative in my documentation not wanting to put in too much for fear of copyrighting (though in hindsight maybe this is acceptable? There was a very nice writeup by someone on the band that I found by accident). Tonight I got a flurry of emails suggesting noteability issues and that it's flagged for deletion and it's been deleted. So it appears you don't give people time to improve articles and now all that work is inaccessible :(. Your comment was "because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia". I can't say I have yet found a Wikipedia article that does explicitly states why it should be included?! Because they have been making an interesting genre of music since 1987 and are well known in Celtic music circles and still play today... is that not reason enough? I don't have days required to research and document everything - I assumed this was a crowd-sourced inout and others could improve what others started? Anyhow my opinion of Wikipedia just dropped drastically having fought with a complex set of rules I dutifully read through and received a heavy boot back out before any improvements could be made.. I appreciate you also donate your time, but I don't have days to learn the intricacies of your culture nor fight with you to invest my time and energy. Maybe you could be more helpful and less draconian before more people give up before they start? This seems like a rather unfriendly and unhelpful society of elites...rather a pity since Wikipedia seemed like a wonderful concept that I hoped to give some energy back to. --Tiggr Down Under (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tiggr Down Under, I don't usually reply at length here, but since you posted a long message, here goes: Four highly experienced regular editors, two of whom are administrators, were involved in the lead up to the deletion of this article. We do not allow incomplete articles to be published and we place at your disposition a free personal userspace to prepare your article and get all the help you need until it is ready for mainspace. I understand exactly how you feel, but very few people understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a synthesis of comments such as on a blog.

It is in fact exactly the opposite of a quick 'in-out crowd sourcing' where others will pick up the pieces and salvage new articles that don't, and might never meet our very clear policies and guidelines for inclusion. If you have spent an hour on your article, some of us have spent literally thousands of hours maintaining the strict standards, and even travelling at our own cost to the Wikipedia international conventions where we craft those rules and create a better editing environment - that doesn't make us an 'elite', quite to the contrary in fact. The 'elite' are those who are paid high salaries at the Wikimedia Foundation and get free business travel who refuse to allow us to better inform new users of what exactly is allowed here and what isn't, while at the same time insisting that we soldier on for free to ensure that only articles that meet their standards for notability are kept.

With fast approaching 6 million articles, no one is going to jump on the page of an unknown band and do the research that the original author didn't have time for. 5.5 million is huge, almost beyond imagination - in a city suburb library it would fill all the shelves and we are only a tiny number (in the hundreds) to keep the place in order. Most of us started out, like you, on the wrong foot (check out our user pages), so instead of kicking it, why not become part of it and give some energy back to it? Your article is restored at Draft:Orion (Celtic band). When you have completed it and ensured hat it meets WP:BAND and is properly sourced, let me know and I'll move it back to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Good on you for that reply, Kudpung. I realised as a newbie there's a lot I don't understand, just it's frustrating to see things removed faster than you can add them with no encouragement or time give ! I missed that playpen bit :( but how do you get help and advice on a draft article? Is it visible to others and who do you ask for help?

Oh, and any chance I can move the article back to draft status? I must admit I had assumed a more collective environment but can understand that the site has probably matured way past that :) What I'm uncertain about - and hope you can help here - is how much of other authors work I can include in Wikipedia? I could always try and contact them, but in the absence of a response is it standard practice to quote a good write-up with credit given to the original authors? Thanks for the time. I shall endeavour to flesh out that page asap

Hi Tiggr Down Under, the article is now already in what we call 'Draft' status at Draft:Orion (Celtic band). What you must do now is follow the links in the welcome message Uncle Roy wrote on your talk page, and if you need help, ask at the TeaHouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with admin

I tried requesting to become an admin but got rejected I need some advice, but don't know what to do.Peace😎😎😎😎😎😎😀 22:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kick ass editor (talk • contribs)

Guess who is back again?

User talk:100.11.59.119 is RebeccaTheAwesomeXD. She quacks so loud now that it is unbelievable. her same writing style is something you'd expect her to change now if she didn't want to be detected for evading. This is now WP:LTA action, is it not? I'm not too sure how to go about reporting, or how long it takes. Wes Wolf ^Talk 15:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

She's admitted to it. I think I'll this to ANI, as the matter is getting too serious now. Wes Wolf ^Talk 16:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, my friend. I'm kind of getting scared of her now, if that makes sense? She did say months ago that she would Proxy IP to continue to evade, and even concocted that silly petition to have me "fired from Wikipedia" - (which still makes me giggle thinking about it). All the threats she made in the past are coming true. And she uses the same style, which makes it too obvious that it is her. The feeling I get is that she wants to bee caught and blocked. How would LTA work in this case, do you know? Wes Wolf ^Talk 16:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Technically there's not much one can do except keep blocking - and fast. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I do have a suspicion that she's also created a new account on here, following this post. Considering my user name was changed on 31 March, and the new user joined 16 April - it did raise an eyebrow, and the same topical background for editing as RTA. But I don't have enough proof to lodge a SPI on this account. Wes Wolf ^Talk 17:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf, you don't need proof for an SPI - that's w hat CU is for. You only need a fairly well founded suspicion. And even then, if you can find a friendly admin or Check User, it might not need to waste people's time at SPI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I've contacted the CU admin who closed down the earlier SPI on Rebecca, with a brief background on my suspicions. Hopefully something will come of it, and we will know if it is her or not. Thank you for the advice and the swift action in stopping her in her tracks. Wes Wolf ^Talk 01:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if revoking talk page access if required for that IP you blocked, after Rebecca has returned via the same IP and removed the block notice. A bit sly WP:SCRUTINY in my eyes, to remove a block notice as if to give the impression that she doesn't want people to see it. Which is something she has done in the past by the way. Wes Wolf ^Talk 12:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Caleb James

I redirected it to his only notable band. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrator assistance please

Ral 33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Care to deal with this fella? Can't see how he can possibly be anything but NOTHERE, and from his last talk post, I'm guessing block evasion also. His talk and mine explain it all. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am the one who this claim is being made against. I initially changed John from Idegon's edit about the Bryan Station High School enrollment numbers. I changed it from the outdated 2014 number to the most recent 2016 number. I mentioned on John from Idegon's talk page that it's better to leave my enrollment number up on the page because 1. It's more recent, 2. It has a source, 3. That source is the only possible source because that particular school district will only release enrollment numbers through the school district itself and will not provide it to anyone else. This makes having an "independent" source impossible for this scenario. You can see the full details on my talk page and my user page.

RAL (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Independent sourcing is more important than the most current number. I've restored the latest figures available from NCES which is 2014-15. Your claim that the district does not release enrollment numbers is frankly bullshit, as I just added them from an independent source. Public schools in the US are answerable to the taxpayers and their federal funding is directly based on their enrollment numbers. Among the many things that Wikipedia is not is an almanac. John from Idegon (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, enrollment stats are not worth fighting over, especially in a school like Bryan Station High School which in true US Wikipedia fashion cares more about its sports results than what they actually teach. I haven't got time to look into this more deeply this morning but from what I see, Ral 33 does not appear to display a very collaborative spirit. The issue with the school article can be dealt with by removing critical, unsourced content altogether, or leaving the most recent absolutely provble number, but an edit war should be avoided. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I would agree with you both on the fact that Station likes to focus on sports, that is actually a project I have on the to-do list. I didn't mean to offend or disrupt anything/anyone. I just meant to add in the correct info because Bryan Station High School received the award for most attendance growth and I felt like the page should reflect recent numbers. I'm fine with leaving it like this until I can get independent and recent numbers. Best of luck to all RAL (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My concerns are far more about the behavior regarding asserting non existent administrative powers. I've sourced the current content, which was unsourced previously. Without a definite change in style from the other editor, my initial statement above still applies. John from Idegon (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I realise that ::John. What RAL doesn.t understand is that there are no article 'administrators' and that you and I as the coordinators of the thousands of school articles on Wikipedia only take care of ensuring that school articles - and their editors - comply with the Wikipedia rules and regulation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง If my phrasing is causing a problem I can change it. I just used "administrator" as a term to signify that the talk group way my own. I never used "administrator" on the school's wiki page nor on John from Idegon's page. Nor did I intently try to show ownership. My problem now is that John from Idegon is leaving a quote from a student's suicide note on the talk page for Bryan Station High School. Ral 33 04:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral 33 (talk • contribs)

ok, Kudpung. He removed his posting from my talk. He is flat out lying. On all fronts. I restored a comment from another editor he had removed. We obviously have a child here, and I think RBI and DFTT clearly apply. If you want I'll take it to the drama board, but this is clear cut. You don't appear to be involved to the point where you can't swing the mop. All your comments appear administrative, not editorial. John from Idegon (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You're quite right, John, and you may be right about RAL who keeps giving himself all these 'official' names. However, I don't think it's worth escalating over this insignificant article (I did say 'article' - not 'school'). Let's move on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง and John from Idegon we can't ignore the fact that John from Idegon re-posted a quote from a suicide note on the talk page. That should be a policy violation if not a law violation? Ral 33 05:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ral 33, there is no such policy and no such law. That post has been on the article talk page for 10 years and there is no mention of what it is about and there never was. If you want to expand the article, you are welcome to do so but please see our guidelines at WP:WPSCG/AG and our policies at WP:RS and WP:V, bearing in mind that you'll also get more help from other editors if you adjust your tone to a more collegial and collaborative approach. If you are connected with the school as faculty or an administrator, you are strongly advised to mention it on user page to avoid being blocked for WP:COI.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง Maybe not in Thailand but here in the U.S. it's different. Thanks for your time. Best of luck. Ral 33 06:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ral 33, I've lived my entire life in the US and know of no law that restricts this. Please keep in mind that attempting to chill a discussion by invoking a legal challenge to the contents can lead to your editing privileges being suspended per WP:NLT. I've hidden the contents in an archive, a move that was really not needed as it was a disjointed mention of content that does not describe at all the context of the quote and it was the only discussion on the page. That action was done to appease you, not for any valid functional Wikipedia reason. It's the best you are going to get. I'd suggest you drop this like a hot rock, cause you have nothing to gain and everything to lose by continuing it. This is a collaborative project and wasting others time over nonsense is not appreciated at all by anyone. John from Idegon (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon Precedent. No legal threats made from me. Best of luck Ral 33 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral 33 (talk • contribs)

Apologize vs. Apologise

I was correct in changing the spelling to "apologize" as it was the original British standard. Though the spelling of "apologise" is considered acceptable outside of the United States, I feel that since the spell check underlines it in red as an incorrect spelling that my changing it to the correct version is acceptable.

Signed: 96.93.121.237 (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have left a polite note and some guidelines on national variations of English. It does surprise me that not all articles on British topics are tagged with {{British English}} on their talk pages, as this would reduce any confusion and any easy mistakes. Not everyone knows the difference between US and UK spelling variations, which is why assuming such "corrections" are done so in error of not knowing about US and UK variations. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

another (talk page stalker) The Oxford style would call for apologize as the more etymological spelling, but I don’t think it’s followed much by anyone other than OUP. Nonetheless it’s one of the forms of BrE we recognize.—Odysseus1479 01:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The use of English on en.Wiki, Odysseus1479, is governed by WP:ENGVAR. 96.93.121.237 has been deliberately changing BE spellings to AE on several British related articles, and these are their only edits. Not only does that demonstrate an ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines (forgivable in a new user), but is also evidence of either a non native speaker, a lack of education, or deliberate linguistic hegemony. It is also symptomatic of the fact that while Wikipedia is 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', anything up to 20% of the daily edits are promotional, PoV, vandalism, or just plain wrong. A good argument perhaps for now insisting that unrgistered editing is possibly not in the best interests of the Wikipedia as it is today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I’m quite aware of the policy; my remark was general, not intended to excuse any misbehaviour in this area—sorry if that’s how it came across. Indeed a significant proportion of the reversions I’ve done have been for WP:ENGVAR violations. Oh, and @Wesley Wolf: although tagging articles & their Talk pages can help, it’s not very effective IME; there are articles on my watchlist that even have in-line comments right beside certain words, requesting that the spelling not be changed, but people keep doing it anyway. Same for other style guidelines like WP:DERRY and WP:PBUH.—Odysseus1479 01:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Odysseus1479, if such people persist to the point of being disruptive, please let me know. If all the levels of uw have been exhausted I have a couple of tools that can address it . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; pretty well all of the instances I’ve seen have been casual or ‘drive-by’ edits, and usually anonymous, but I’ll give you a shout if I come across a sustained or otherwise egregious case.—Odysseus1479 02:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd beg to differ on the tagging @Odysseus1479:. All of the Eurovision articles (which is the main topic area I contribute towards) have their talk pages tagged with {{British English}}, and even the edit notice has the same. And it appears to work, as we do have American users who take note and use BE rather than AE, including date formatting. So it does pay off to some degree using the template appropriately. I will agree on the 'drive-by edits' though, they do get annoying; as do those smelly sock-folk that I seem to have acquired a strong snout for sniffing them out with . Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479 and Wesley Wolf:, we have in fact in the past had some cases of very deliberate bad faith mass changes from BE to AE. Oddly, it never happens the other way round. We even had an admin who insisted to the point of mass disruption in changing the IPA for city names in England to rhotic American pronunciation. Needless to say, they are no longer a sysop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Whoops to that sysop. I am 100% British, but use to date an American, so I am comfortable with both BE and AE, and ironically my brain switches between the two depending on what article I am editing on here. Wes Wolf ^Talk 03:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing ironic about it Wes - it's what is called Code-switching and it's quite natural especially for people who have lived among different cultures or who are interested in linguistics. I am also 100% British but I switch naturally and subconsciously not only between AE and BE but also several regional dialects of German, French, Dutch, and Thai. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

London Swing Orchestra

Dear "I don't suffer fools gladly"

Please note that this orchestra has an international reputation spanning 33 years...what part of the criteria do you object to?

Gramjames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramjames (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to place Gramjames new comment into its own thread, so that it doesn't get mixed up in the one above. However, at Gramjames, looking at the article itself, it does not comply with any of Wikipedia's guidelines. Firstly, the structure is not in accordance with the rules, it has no citations which is vital for an article. For all we know the details could be fake, because you have not added any citations in order to verify what is written. Perhaps taking time to look at how to write your first article, may be of immense help. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe we may have a severe conflict of interest here. Looking at the editing history, Gramjames may appear to be Graham James Dalby. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is there any chance to userfy both articles into my user area, and I'll work on bringing them both up to Wikipedia standards, so that thy meet notability, manual of style, etc. That is if Gramjames is OK with this option? It'll probably take me a while as there are two articles in need of standardising, but I'm more than happy to crack on with it. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I would wait until he responds here to the message I left on his tp, Wes. That said, you know how I feel about finishing articles for lazy editors and spammers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, yes, I am happy to wait on what Gramjames has to say. I'm probably throwing myself in deep waters without a life-saver, as I'm not familiar with writing articles on orchestras and bios are well out of my comfort-zone. But I'm willing to give it my best shot... suppose I have to learn someday . I don't normally offer this sort of gesture to finish off other's articles, but I'm in one of those "good deed" days. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm well within my comfort zone with music and musicians, especially jazz and classic and I think it's a shame and a scandal when people of Dalby's stature have to use sarcasm and abuse the voluntary work of the people who run Wikipedia for free. I have to abide by the rules of course, but personally I would delete the lot and have done with it. Looks too as if the Dalby page was a commissioned work - it's too good for an average Wikipedia contributor. The subjects of both pages may well be notable, but the article aren't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Both articles look like a mirror of each other, which I hope no copy/paste tactic has happened. I looked on the LSO website, and there could even be a WP:COPYVIO from that too. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think your hunch on both these articles being professionally written and possibly paid edits might well be correct. Jane grierson (who created Dalby's article) is closely connected. She even did a draft version at WikiVisually. And more strange, L'Hollister‎, who has just joined Wikipedia, made vast edits to the LSO article. I've decided that AfD is the only best option, and also considering create protection. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a clear case of socking. I suggest you open a SPI. L'Hollister starts editing the article within hours of your tagging and his edits are to remove the tags. James also spammed himself into The Mrs Bradley Mysteries. user:Jane grierson stopped editing in Sept 2013 and while they may well be one of the other two, it's too old to include in an SPI. The AfDs are a good idea and might shake the tree. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, that was a smart move reverting Hollister's edits. I just went there to do exactly the same thing and saw you had already done it. I'll now protect it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I was going to stick to my offer of bringing the articles up to standard. But after it came up that Hollister thanked me for an edit, my suspicions rose sharply. So I did a quick Google search on all three names and found the connection between Jane and Graham, and then that draft article on another site. I also discovered that Jane Grierson is an author - so likely to have been paid to write the BLP. Jane also spammed Graham Dalby into The Mrs Bradley Mysteries a little over 7 years ago. Coincidence that her name crops up!? I think not! Anyway, I've opened a SPI on all three of them, and after the sly tactics I felt AfD was the final act of their long-running theatrical play a-la-Wiki-style. If and when they get deleted, I'll seek creation protection on both the bio and the orchestra pages. That'll bring the curtain down - so to speak. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I find it interesting with the Editor Interaction Analyser results. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Lol! Wes, well done - keep up the good work. If you need anything protecting, let me know; no need to gum up RFPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting to have doubts on LSO being semi-protected. Both users are likely to gain auto-confirmed status soon, which will allow them to edit the articles again, which defeats the object of why it has been protected. I'm wondering if raising it to WP:XCON is safer, as they will need to have achieved 30 days tenure and at least 500 edits; by which time the articles are likely to be deleted and protected. And as they say in the good old game, it'll be checkmate and no more moves for them to make. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 DoneKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That was a close call. Gramjames is likely to gain auto-confirmed on May 29, and L'Hollister on May 31. Both articles will still be at AfD in that period, and as we know one of them likes to remove tags, then it would have only invited them to sit and wait to pounce. At least with extended confirm (which they won't get until end of June) they won't be able to edit, disrupt, and yet leaving the article editable to those with XCON - which is safe to say I have that user right. I'm glad I came here now and TPS'd the chat, it has turned into a right old Wiki-play-dia. Haha. Keep up the good work, my friend! Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The curtain has come down on the act of Gramjames, L'Hollister, and crew. I think that allows for both articles to be WP:G5 deleted, if I'm not mistaken. Time for the encore! Lol. Wes Wolf ^Talk 16:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonides S. Virata Memorial School

Um...this is my only school nomination. It's also not a high school or college. SL93 (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor SL93: I don't think Kudpung means you have "excessively" nominated loads of schools. It is the "procedural keep" rational that is explaining the excessive side to it. I had to read it twice to understand its context, so can see the confusion. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a high school or college. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, it unintentionally fell into a massive cleanup of mass school AfD nominations by another editor. According to the way we handle school articles for many years, it would have been kept anyway. No blot on your experience - we all get the occasional AfD wrong, including me sometimes (but not schools). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought that elementary schools and middle schools had no automatic notability. That is what I see in every AfD for them. They are either deleted or redirected. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aren't private schools a kind of secondary school, but non-governmental, because of their admittance age range, which is years 7 through 12 (year twelve is known as lower sixth) and year 13 (upper sixth). So that would make it a high school. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The article is categorized as an elementary school and it goes up to 4th grade. SL93 (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is what you often see, SL93, yes. But it's wrong. Unfortunately, due to Wikipedia's open editing policy, many AfD are opened and/or voted on by users who are not aware of our policies and guidelines and unfortunately all an admin can do in such a situation is close according to the 'consensus'. See WP:OUTCOMES for more details, noting also that redirect (when possible), rather than delete is an official policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you just reopen it and let it run its course? I had nothing to do with that editor. SL93 (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor SL93: Are you sure it is an elementary school that goes up to 4th grade? From what I see in the article, the lead states it is a private school, and the infobox shows the age range 3 to 16 years old. It is probably mis-categorised, which is easily done. Wes Wolf ^Talk 03:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The infobox says up to 4th grade as well. SL93 (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I can verify that is is also a secondary school, so please undo your closure and let me withdraw it. Your rationale doesn't apply to me. SL93 (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does cover "independently accredited degree-awarding institutions" and also "elementary" schools. So that is probably why the speedy keep, due to an already agreed outcome from aeons ago. Wes Wolf ^Talk 03:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor SL93: Undo the closure so that you can withdraw and close it yourself? It is already close, just the rational needs rewording to "nom withdrawn". Saves reopening only for it to be reclosed again. Wes Wolf ^Talk 03:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I asked because I really don't need to get in trouble with an admin again. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor SL93:, the whole reason you got unitentionally involved with this is because some clown caused us two to three hours of clean up work. Do you really want to add another 15 minutes to that? I already said there is no blot on your editing landscape, and you haven't got in trouble. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor SL93:, from one A.S to another, do not panic. You're not in trouble for anything. Mistakes can happen, it is what makes us human afterall. You wasn't to know about WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. In fact, I didn't know about that either until a few minutes ago, so I would have probably made the same mistake if I where in your shoes. Don't let it get to you, Wikipedia has so many rules that even I can't keep up with them all. . Wes Wolf ^Talk 03:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Schools and Universities notability

Hello there. I am here to discuss all I done wrong in previous days. I have done many sprees of moves and AfDs which clearly violates the policy making me invaluable as whole in community. I want to learn what makes a school or college notable especially in case of South Asian related articles. Apology for all I done wrong. Greenbörg (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your candid message Greenbörg. However, I think you should stay well away from all moves and deletion process and anything that concerns the processing of new articles. I recommend you concentrate on finding sources for articles and perhaps reviewing Recent Changes and helping to combat vandalism. If you don't stop what you have been doing, there is a very strong chance that the community will take measures to limit your editing or even stop you editing altogether. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Well, you are right in this case. I am creating hurdles for myself. I can be better contributor than what I have done. I have learnt it now. Can you help me? Greenbörg (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor Greenbörg:, apologies for being a (talk page stalker) here. But I noticed your question on seeking advice on how to be a better contributor. May I suggest WP:ADOPT which is an adopt-a-user program that is designed to help new and inexperienced users by pairing them with more experienced. I have heard outstanding reviews about that specialist team, and who knows it could be beneficial to your needs. Good luck and happy editing. Wes Wolf ^Talk 12:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources

You said in previous discussion that I should focus on finding sources. But how on Wikipedia, one can verify the bibliographical sources. Please elaborate that. Greenbörg (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS and WP:V first, then WP:CITE. Then the best way to find sources is tosearch the Internet through Google until you find sources that comply with those criteria. If you can't find the right kind of sources for an article, leave it for someone else who knows how to dig deeper or who has access to paywalls and well stocked English libraries etc. That might not be quite so easy in your country although in urban Australia, even city suburbs libraries are usually well stocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The peanut gallery did chime in

In case you didn't notice, about a third of those TLDR comments you referred to came from me, a member of the peanut gallery. The (unanimous) support for a number of the proposals also came from other random peanut throwers after the "TLDR commentary" had already ended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I meant the 'regulars' in the ANI peanut gallery who have made even more edits to ANI than I have during my 6 years of busy adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oops! I see you 'have' made more edits there than I have. But I do have other admin jobs to do as well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

My ANI

Hi, Kudpung. Thanks for closing my ANI, and I totally agree with your recommendation of WP:CVUA training, which I will definitely do before participating in any other XfD discussions. For one thing, it would get my over my phobia about the helper scripts. However, I was wondering if you could help me understand something. On my Talk page, you wrote:

"I saw you removed a CSD tag from User:Qcpu/Quezon City Polytechnic University. Perhaps you didn't fully read WP:G11/UAA before doing so. We normally expect users to have significant experience before tagging or untagging pages for deletion. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)"

By contrast, in my ANI discussion, the following discussion occurred:

"For the record, only administrators can decline speedy deletion requests. Amaury

"Decline, sure, but there isn't a policy against non-administrators removing the tags, is there? The tag itself only says that the creator/editor of the article can't remove it, not that it can only be touched by administrators. But I am here to learn." [[:me]

"That ties in with declining and falls under the same thing. Amaury

"Anyone apart from the article creator can decline a speedy deletion nomination by removing the tag, not just admins." Boing! said Zebedee

Now let's be clear - I'm not going to be removing any speedy deletion tags until I've gone through WP:CVUA, which I'd never heard of until your closing of my ANI, and even then I don't think speedy deletion is really my bag. But I have read the speedy deletion criteria repeatedly, and the cases where I removed SD tags were where I had looked at the user- and draft- space articles in question and where WP:SPAM really did not seem to apply; my understanding is still that only unambiguous cases of WP:SPAM are subject to SD.

So, was the problem that I removed a tag that was placed by a more experienced editor? You mentioned Legacypac, but he was previously warned and banned precisely for defying WP:CONSENSUS on drafts and userspace articles, for example by submitting them to AfC to promote their deletion, which it seems that they are still doing <http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Vulcan1812/Bagley,_Alabama&action=history> <http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&curid=26467366&diff=782648198&oldid=782647878> . It just seems odd to me that you would identify that particular user as one I should trust with maintenance tasks, when they appear to be in contravention of the consensus in WP:STALE. So, what is it that I am missing? Clearly there is something. I don't want to not get it.Newimpartial (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

CSD templates have some logic built into them that changes their wording depending on the type of page they are placed on. You may be familiar with the most of the standard CSD tags for articles, but there are thousands of tags and even I don't know them all by heart and have to check sometimes if their wording is appropriate for what I'm abut to do. We don't have a hierarchy here, but DGG is one of the oldest, most experienced, and most respected admins on Wikipedia and is specialised in notability and deletion issues. Legacypac and I have had our differences in the past and he hasn't been an angel but he does do a huge amount of good work and knows our policies in some areas even better than I do. Whatever he might be doing now, the ANI thread was not about him, so we don't discuss it unless a formal complaint has been lodged.

I know you think you've been doing the right thing but although you registered your account a long time ago you only began to edit this month. With only a couple of hundred edits, now is not the time to be thinking about these things. When you've been regularly editing for a year or two, especially at recent changes or other basic maintenance tasks, you'll be surprised how much you will have learnt on the job. Trust me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial, as with most guidelines and policies in WP, the meaning of the deletion criteria depends a great deal on how they are interpreted. The interpretation is done by the accumulated and sometimes changing consensus the talk pages of the noticeboards and policy/guideline pages, and by the very variable decisions at individual instances. The result is sometimes a considerable gap between the formal wording and the effectual applications of it. Some things are interpreted very narrowly, some very broadly; some very strictly, and some very permissively.. Individual people differ, and the consensus is affect by which individual show up at a given argument. Every one of us who participates in these arguments has a different view of it. That said, there are some constants: the clearest example is that BLP tends to be interpreted strictly and broadly (more broadly than I really think justified); copyvio also strictly (and again more broadly than I think necessary--we are much less permissive than USLaw about fair use); most speedy criteria somewhat more broadly than they are written; WP:V is often disregarded unless someone protests,

The result, of course, is an encyclopedia full of inconsistencies, with consequent difficult for new users in figuring out just what is permitted. But this is inherent in the underlying working method of the encyclopedia -- we make our own rules, we make what exceptions we please, and there is no person or group that who can definitively settle disputes about content. The only reason this works is because of mutual tolerance. There is consequently a strong feeling against individual who try to make a point overemphasizing any one thing. Working with deletion processes involves tolerating an especially large amount of ambiguity and stupid decisions. Those who want a more predictable environment, would do better to work on vandalism or copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Wesley Wolf's talk page. 21:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

" More interesting, not even the peanut gallery have deigned to chime in."

Hi Kudpung, a few admins made it clear this month that the "peanut gallery" is not supposed to exist at AN/I. Just FYI. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Lol, L3X1, they are just being polite. Have you ever wondered why fewer and fewer admins bother to go near ANI? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I always assumed that seeing the same bad behavior (often by the same editors) over and over and over again was tiring, or there were bigger to fish to fry. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

Any chance of semi-protecting Eurovision Song Contest 2018? Since 17 April, it has been protected twice, 1 week (after vandalism), then 2 weeks (after unsourced content). And yet again it is under a lot of unsourced edits, which I've just removed, and various other disruptive edits which other's have reverted since it became unprotected. Thanks, Kudpung! Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

RevDel

A couple of RevDel's might be required on 2 BLP articles. A vulgar piece on this edit, and explicit attack on this one. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done. Swarm ♠ 21:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Deprodding of Naresh Shenoy‎

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Naresh Shenoy‎, which you proposed for deletion. Reason: This very subject might be notable for a murder case he was involved in: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], I think you get the point. Those are some reputable sources. Maybe the article needs to be subjected to some good ol' fashioned fire and brimstone, but uncontroversial deletion I disagree with. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Guye Sent to AfD where you can argue your case and the community will decide. Also please check out our Notability Guidelines and WP:DTTR - I check my PROD log daily. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Bally Singh

Refences have now been added