User talk:Kudpung/Archive Mar 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Translation request[edit]

Hi, I came across your name via the list of available translators, and I am wondering if I could interest you in developing a new article for the English wiki, based on Franz Kurowski.

I have developed some content on Kurowski for these two articles:

but I only have one English language source, while the German wiki has many more.

I've had (am having) several discussions pertaining to Kurowsk; see for example here:

So an article on him where I could point people to would be great!

If you don't have availability or this is not your cup of tea, that is totally cool. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K.e.coffman, under normal circumstances I'd love to, but unfortunately at this moment I do not have the time required to look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. I will try another person on the list. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi K.e.coffman, I have looked at the German Wikipedia article and because I can translate as fast as I can type I have made a first draft in English already. matching the sources and creating the links will take longer. I wioll post the article to mainspace as soon as possible with the correct attributions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was fast! I will eagerly await the article. I can add the English language citations / source then. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll post the article as soon as I have proof read it and formatted it correctly. As there is no rule that the source material be translated, I'll let you plod through the article and insert the inline links for the reflist and format the references according to our local WP:CITE and MoS recommendations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+HI K.e.coffman. It's at Draft:Franz Kurowski. I've done all I want to on it. It's not really an area of interest of mine so I have probably not put into it the same effort as I have done on some works of literary or linguistic merit. Please check it over again for any nonsense, compare it with the German original, add the sources from the German original, and add whatever you think should be added from what I have deliberately left out. Let me know when you have done that and I'll add the attribution and move it to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About 2S Studio[edit]

Hello, i create for now. in next few days i will work on that page, put informations etc. What to do to not be deleted? Thanks Stojan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stojansmk (talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

За жал, не може да се користи Википедија за рекламирање на вашата компанија.[Sorry, you can not use Wikipedia to advertise your company.[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP[edit]

Hi, I saw your note. I've been patrolling new pages for some time now, and after some initial issues other users helped me with I've had no problems and a high accuracy rate. I hardly think glancing at an article on a topic I'm unfamiliar with & missing a copyvio is grounds for saying I have a "high error rate" and suggesting I cease NPP. JamesG5 (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. An article like that is a glaring COPYVIO at first sight. That;s the level of competency we must be able to rely on from our patrollers as long as we do not have a regulated user right to do it. If you insist that you continue to patrol new pages, if you're not sure about something, give it a miss completely. NPP is absolrtely not the place for wannabe maintenance workers to be cutting their teeth. You may be interested in this current discussion: Getting_sick_of_this--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've read thru it. Again, missing one copyvio is hardly a "high rate." In fact you mention, in that discussion, DGG as being one of the best about this issue. When I first started months ago and was making mistakes DGG is one of the people who came to me & let me know I was doing some things wrong. So I went back thru policies and DGG since let me know I was doing a good job. I understand your concerns, but this seems like a bit of an overreaction. I see the behavior you're talking about in that discussion and it's more about people RACING to delete & creating false positives, which is what I was cautioned for & am striving not to do. I'll gladly take your input and be more careful but one mistake in months of NPP is not a "high rate" and doesn't seem cause to say "quit it." That's no way to encourage people to learn and take part in making Wikipedia better. JamesG5 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry James, but with only 379 edits to mainspace you are nowhere ready for the complexities of NPP. You don't even qualify for some of the simpler tasks. People who join Wikipedia with the foremost intention of policing ir give me pause. I'd rather encourage new editors to add and create new content and get it right than teach someone to run before they can walk. My disillusionment with NPP and AfC is one of the reasons why I have handed my admin tools i and gone into xmi-retirement. Never-ending campaigns are extremely frustrating 6o a volunteer.

About 2S Studio[edit]

Hello, What is the steps for creating this kind of page? Because i see its deleted now. I like to put history, logo, what we do in this 12 years etc. Its possible? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stojansmk (talk • contribs) 14:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PLease see the messages on your talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-urgent![edit]

Work was extremely slow, so I have committed an essay. I'd be interested in your thoughts (and those of any talk page stalkers), if and when you feel inclined to take a look. Now, of course, work just heated up :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yngvadottir. Nicely written. Be nice if the candidates would read it, but they quite obviously don't read the other stuff either. Try splitting up the paragraps a bit more and perhaps introduce some low level headers togive it the appearance of more structure. Add links to it on all the other RfA advice pages, including mine. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the praise! I didn't expect it, since I disagree with some of the traditional advice. I had intended to write short bullet points but it just came out in long paragraphs, I'm afraid. So I think I'll let it sit there quivering like a jelly fresh from the mould, at least for now. Going to link it at the bottom of the main guide and someone will probably come along and either object to it or further link it. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship offer to Wikimania 2016[edit]

We have emailed you three times to no avail with Scholarship offer. If we do not hear from you by March 10, the scholarship will go to someone else. Can you please email me directly as soon as possible before March 10? eyoung@wikimedia.org

Thanks, Ellie Young on behalf of the Wikimania Scholarship Committee.EYoung (WMF) (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. EYoung (WMF). Of course I accept the offer.. I have emailed you within seconds of you posting the message above. I assure you that I have not received any communications regarding a Scholarships offer beyond a notification from Frederico on 20 February that my applicatio was finally under review. Of course I accept the offer. I receive emails from Wikipedians on a daily basis but I have had no further nessages regarding my scholarship since that date. I even mailed Frederico on 8 March to ask if there was any news. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation help[edit]

Hello Kudpung. Sincere apologies for contacting you this way, but I discovered your name via the list of French-English translators page. There is some confusion which is verging on an overly heated debate at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016#"J'ai cherché" translation, in which nobody can determine what the phrase "J'ai cherché" actually translates as into English. Multiple sources give different meanings (I sought, I searched, I have been looking for). And editors are basing the translation as "I have been looking for", purely on the basis that that is the same phrase used in the English chorus of the same song J'ai cherché. A few editors have stated that passé composé would come into benefactor. Whilst others (including myself) are looking at the past/present tense of the context and its usage. Would it be possible when you have a spare moment, to visit the discussion and provide a detailed explanation and translation, so that a peaceful resolution can be sought. Kindest regards, Wes Mouse ✒ 00:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back![edit]

As a recently returned sysop, welcome back to the admin corps. We always need help at WP:ADMINBACKLOG if there are any areas you can help with that would be most welcomed. Happy mopping! — xaosflux Talk 23:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi, could you please clarify this passage from Kurowski's passage?

English: In a work that examines the role of Landser-pulp ("soldier-pulp") literature for East German neo-Nazis, Dirk Wilking, CEO of the mobile counseling teams in Brandenburg Institute for Community Consultation, uses Kurowski's 1982 volume Jagd auf "graue Wölfe" – 1943 – das U-Boot-Sterben im Atlantik (Hunt for "Gray Wolves" - 1943: the U-boat Death in the Atlantic to describe the ideological content of Landser-pulp: "war is described as consisting of random coincidences and as a fateful interplay, and poses every question of guilt and consequences of purpose...

Original: Dirk Wilking, Geschäftsführer des Mobilen Beratungsteams im Brandenburgischen Institut für Gemeinwesenberatung, nutzt in einer Arbeit, die die Funktion von Landser-Heften für ostdeutsche Neonazis untersucht, Kurowskis als Landser-Großband erschienenes Jagd auf „graue Wölfe“ – 1943 – das U-Boot-Sterben im Atlantik von 1982 zur Beschreibung des ideologischen Gehaltes der Landserhefte: „Krieg wird dann auch als ,schicksalhaftes Wechselspiel‘ beschrieben, das aus ,Zufallsfügungen‘ besteht und jede Frage nach Schuld und Folgen gegenstandslos macht. Die enge Verquickung der Begriffe Krieg, Schicksal (eine von Hitlers Propaganda gerne benutzte Phrase während des Zweiten Weltkrieges) und Spiel (,Wechselspiel‘, ,Drama‘, ,Tragödie‘) [Zitate aus ,Graue Wölfe‘] verursacht nicht nur, wie Antoni bemerkt, eine kriegsverharmlosende Wirkung, sondern lässt den Krieg geradezu als einen erstrebenswerten Zustand erscheinen. Das ,göttliche‘ Prinzip des Phänomens Krieg ist für die ,Landser‘-Autoren die Pflichterfüllung: Ohne sie kann das Naturereignis nicht stattfinden.“

It seems that Wilking is refering to the book Jagd auf "graue Wölfe" by different authors (Herzog/Shomaeker). Where does Kurowski come in? Wilking compares Kurowski's works to Jagd auf "graue Wölfe"? Thank you, K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi K.e.coffman. Here is a more literal translation of the part you are querying, leaving out the lengthy book titles etc., for simplicity:

Dirk Willing uses in a work that researches the function of Landser pulp, Kurowski's Hunt of the Grey Wolves as a description of the ideological content of the Landser pulp: 'War will then also be as 'fateful interplay' described that consists of 'random coincidences' and makes worthless every question of guilt and consequences. .

Which is probably actually clearer and more accurate than my hasty draft. I welcome yours and any other opinion and you certainly have a better flair for prose than I do when translating from de to en. To be honest, there are several passages/sentences in the entire article that come across as convoluted, hence my comment about collaborative writing in German. I'm quick to respond (time zones permitting)so if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask - an article's first cast is often not perfect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hi, I see that you'd blocked this IP: 213.205.251.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) sometime back. I've been facing constant harassment from this (and one more range which is currently blocked) user. I keep reporting them multiple times every day, yet they shift to another IP and indulge in vandalism. Is there a way to stop them, at least for a brief period?This might give you a clear idea. Thanks —Vensatry (Talk) 09:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vensatry, it looks as if a couple of admins are already doing something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts[edit]

Hello there, in regards to your message about Bransford, I made a mistake with my log in, meaning that for one session I used the wrong account when editing my page but for the rest of my wikipedia page, have used the correct account. This account is the one that links me to my course as well, so this is the main account I use. Thank you TaylorB95 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address this one?[edit]

Thought with your involvement with NPP you'd be better suited to counsel this fella: See this. Thanks. Welcome back to the Wiki janitorial service. John from Idegon (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent block of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz[edit]

Hello. I am in the middle of reviewing Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz's unblock request. I am wondering if the basis for the block is simply this edit, or do you think there is evidence that the edits by Special:Contributions/66.87.132.165 are by Jeltz?

Please help me understand this block a little bit better so I can give a fair review. Thank you. HighInBC 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A comment, if I may: I see that in the unblock request, PVJ is claiming that the personal-attacking IP was not him. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to request a checkuser? Because the IP was quacking strongly - sudden appearance of personal attacks on the two people PVJ blames for his troubles, and vandalism to an article PVJ had edited. Edits like this are obviously and specifically about PVJ's recent block. BTW he can't claim that one of us invented the IP to make him look bad, since it has been here since November 2015. Links are available at the ANI request. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot assume the IP was the same person all along, IPs change owners and the content of the edits don't match up. Also note the recent IP based harassment on Jeltz's talk page, it may be someone trying to get them blocked. I don't think one of you would do something like this, if it is not Jeltz then it is likely a troll stirring the pot. HighInBC 16:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (edit conflict) (edit conflict)I was just in the process of making the same comment as Melanie about CU. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A CU would be a good idea if you don't have behavioural evidence already. I can delay my review if you want to do that. HighInBC 16:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) However it occurred to me that Checkusers usually won't comment about any connection between a user account and a IP - for privacy reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is making me think that someone may have setup Jeltz and is now continuing the trolling. Clearly there is a problem with battleground mentality with Jeltz but such people are often targets of trolling because they are easy to provoke. HighInBC 16:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::::That is absolutely true. However, in some cases, there are only two possible CU results (no 'maybe') and the result will either exonerate someone, or result in a miscreant being shown the door. In this case, a CU can either say 'No conclusive technical evidence', or reblock with the {{checkuserblock}} template. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my concern above, I do note that Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks says "In order to prevent abuse, we may also check your IP address and other accounts using it." So that suggests it is possible. Kudpung, are you going to be the one to request CU? Or High? Not me, obviously. Maybe we should also ask for CU comparison to the two IPs that have been trolling his talk page? --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As admin investigating the block appeal, it would be best if HighInBC were to find a friendly CU. Besides which it's 1:00am here and past my bedtime. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any consolation I've just blocked the IP from East Tryon St for a further 2 weeks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and I just blocked his brother. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the user was already under a 48 hour block there is no hurry to sort this out. I won't be asking for a CU because as a block reviewer it is not my job to build a case to support the block, that is the job for the person making the block. I am trying to determine if there are grounds to appeal the block. I am happy to give you some time to get your evidence in order, however when the expiry time for the original block comes about I will feel some urgency to resolve the block review. HighInBC 18:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You took on the review which means you will either allow the appeal or reject it. I won't stand in your way; that's what we have these discussions for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little additional information: four of the five IPs involved - the original one that attacked me and VQuakr, the second attacker of Jeltz's talk page, and both of the ones on your talk pages - all geolocate to the same very small town in South Carolina. The other - the first one to attack Jeltz's talk page - geolocates to Gainesville, Georgia. All five are almost certainly the same person. Of course that doesn't tell us who they are: are they a troll who started out by impersonating Jeltz, or are they Jeltz who later impersonated a troll? It's true that the "troll" didn't appear until after the block was extended; that is suggestive but not evidence. --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The data you wanted[edit]

...are on that WP:NPP subpage. You know the one. I'm sure you have it watchlisted, but it belatedly occurred to me that notifying you explicitly was a good idea.

The number of curations/first curation/last curation columns are pulled from every entry in this log, not just the "User (talk | contribs | block) marked Article as reviewed" ones. I can narrow it down to the latter if that's what you were really after. —Cryptic 05:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albano Mucci[edit]

Hi Kudpung, you've recently flagged an article about Albano Mucci for deletion. I'm currently wading through the biography policy of wikipedia. I'm actually writing Al's biography - unofficially I guess - I've been friends with him for 20 years. Not sure how to use this statement as a citation though, and I probably cannot... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robwelan (talk • contribs) 06:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason why you should not be writing the articel, unfortunately. Please see: WP:COI. Oh, and please also sign your posts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung, I just wanted to let you know I deleted your edit accidentally (to Albano Mucci page). I'm new to Wikipedia. I tried adding citations - for example - and I got a 'conflict' message. I've added about 6 citations, but I can't figure out how to resolve the conflict, nor how to keep your add. I'll work it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robwelan (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Narutolovehinata5's talk page.
Message added 04:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

page[edit]

hi I created a new page and it says that it will be up for deletion. the page is Akif Emre - I will be adding more to it as a I go along, how can I make sure that its not deleted? thanks Zmwiki (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Zmwiki[reply]

Zmwiki, You're lucky - if I hadn't seen it, it would have been deleted already. You must find sources that comply with our notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). But I don't think it's going to be easy. Anyway, you now have 7 days to find those sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK so what about a link to his work etc like youtube? this is a genuine article. thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmwiki (talk • contribs) 06:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube, Social Networking sites, blogs, and primary sources are not allowed - they don't have reliable or audited content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kudpung[edit]

Hey Kudpung
Can you completely delete my page, James Steinkamp III, that way it does appear in a google, yahoo, or bing search. Thanks Justin.steinkamp.9 (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
page has already been deleted --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackael(dj/producer)[edit]

Jackael(dj/producer) is also a duplicate article interesting enough created by another user-possible SPI here! Wgolf (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SilverPush[edit]

I just created SilverPush within the last few minutes. I've already made multiple edits, added a source, and had two more sources I was about to add. Why did you instantly delete this article (less than 10 minutes after creation)? —danhash (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article so that you can expand it. At the time of deletion it was a one-line stub complete with all sections, and did not not meet criteria for retention. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And was *literally* just created within the last few minutes. You didn't check the edit history to see I was still working on it? Thanks for wasting the time I was spending improving the article. Nice way of encouraging contribution! —danhash (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You got it back, didn't you? And quicker than the time it took you to create it. I did check the article history. It was a one-line stub. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It got deleted while I was in the middle of an edit, which is very disruptive to editing, if you can imagine. And it took me more time to get it restored than I'd had to work on it. And now I have other things to do, and it will probably be tomorrow before I can continue working on it. What a great admin. —danhash (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P Rome wasn't built in a day. Now just get on with it and stop complaining. Some admin? Some user... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung/Archive_Mar_2016&oldid=1140449362"