User talk:Kudpung/Archive Nov 2013

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

Thank you[edit]

The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you for your help and patience yesterday in explaining how to proceed when dealing with a SPA/COI. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of Future RfA[edit]

Hi there, I noticed at WP:RRN that you are prepared to consider nominating users for adminship. While I am not yet considering this, it would be something I would look at in the not to distant future (perhaps in the new year) and I was wondering, if you have the time, if you could give me some feedback regarding how close to this I am. Also, I recieved a block on my first day for edit warring – mainly due to a lack of understanding of policy. I have since learned from this and haven't been blocked since but I was wondering if you think this would effect my chances of becoming an admin, even if I openly declared it on my RfA when the time comes.

Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think that old 3R block would do much damage. However, please first read WP:Advice for RfA candidates, and then User:Kudpung/RfA criteria. When you've done that, let me know how you current situation compares. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I meet most of those criteria. The main exception being 1 (just under) at User:Kudpung/RfA criteria. As I say, I'm not looking to run yet but am looking for some pointers in the right direction. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think those two essays will have told you most of what you need to know – I wrote the Advice to candidates one. My criteria are among the most strict, so if you pass most of them you will be in the right direction. Other things voters look for are are a friendly and helpful disposition, a mature user page, clean untagged creations (if any), and regular recent activity. If they can't fault you on anything, they may resort to posing trick questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – I shall bare that in mind and refer back to your essays when the time comes. Oddbodz (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New page[edit]

Hi Kudpung, I just created a new article (Australian Screen Sound Guild), given I haven't created many I was wondering if you (or one of your stalkers) would be able to talk a look and let me know if there is anything I need to do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems notable and I've passed it as reviewed. However, there are a lot of primary sources and one ref is a listing. I didn't take the time to read through the long PDF but I guss there is something appropriate in there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Homopot[edit]

Thanks for deleting so quickly, I was in the process of searching for an admin, but you beat me to it. Thanks, Matty.007 19:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vigilance at NPP. When I'm around, I'm generally around 24/24 so I'm very quick. When I'm not around it's because I'm in the jungle with no Internet access. Don't be fooled by the 'availabilty' thing at the top of the page – I often forget to change it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a talk page, if you have the time to delete it. Thanks, Matty.007 19:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete user talk pages. The one very good reason is that they are required in the archives for previous warnings. Blanking any clearly inappropriate content is generally sufficient. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got that wrong, didn't I? talk page deleted. In my hurry to delete the Attack Page I forgot it. Thanks again :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, thanks again for the speed of action. Matty.007 20:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things[edit]

Hi Kudpung, there are quite a number of things I want to tell you.

WP:AFC/A[edit]

I have shifted all the instructors to a new page, WP:Articles for creation/Academy/Instructors in case there are more instructors in the future. I have also shifted the instructors in their usernames' alphabetical order.

Mdann52's RfA[edit]

I am kind of worried about Mdann52's RfA, as the support votes are not enough to pass. I saw that you have opposed his RfA, because of the inadequate understanding of policies or the nominators (including me) are not good enough? Do you think it is better to wait a while or directly tellig him that I am sorry and also asking him to withdraw his RfA? It has only been 2 days and his RfA has received more than 10 opposes. I have a premonition that his RfA is not going to pass. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC/A: There are not going to be a lot of instructors so it wasn't really necessary to create a sub page for the trainers. I deliberately create these academies without transclusions so that everything is on one page to keep things simple. No problems though, we can leave it as it is now.
Mdann52's RfA: I would not suggest that he withdraw. What I would do would be to send him an email asking his opinion on possible withdrawal, and perhaps suggest he read WP:Advice for RfA candidates before he makes up his own mind. I think that's the fairest thing to do. Maybe you should also discuss it with Matty.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was of the opinion we should wait a couple/few days in case the tide turns, but I can try and have a chat in private on the IRC if you think it is for the best? Thanks, Matty.007 08:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will wait for 2 to 3 days, then I will see what I can do. It has only lasted for 2 days. Maybe there will be a miracle whereby there is an increase in the number of support votes. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween![edit]

 Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Kudpung! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

An Cumann Gaelach, TCD deleted page request?[edit]

Dear Sir,

I was previously in charge of updating the article An Cumann Gaelach, TCD the year before last. It has come to my attention that it has been deleted without any warning. Now I'm not going to pretend that I understand how editing and deleting works in the Wikipedia world and how people are meant to be kept up to date on the removal and creation of pages, however I would like to put forward a case for the undeletion of this article. The article is merely about the Irish Society in Trinity College Dublin, it includes information about interesting past members such as Douglas Hyde the first president of Ireland as well as the current committee and its role in college life. If there was any information on the page that was deemed inappropriate under Wikipedia's rules then I will be happy to edit or delete such content. However, I do not believe that the entire page content could be deemed inappropriate and hence merited deletion. If you could point out the reason for its deletion or aid me in editing the page I would be happy to cooperate.

Thank you sincerely for your time,

Fia Casey Username: Feezleweezle

See my reply to a similar request at WP:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dustbin Baby (film) (and probably others?)[edit]

There are other pages that you enabled protection on (see Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages. In the meantime, what about Dustbin Baby film? There have been no vandalism since semi-protection, and edits are infrequent. If unprotection is too much, what about pending changes instead? George Ho (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can make requests for unprotection and Pending Changes at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'll wait for you in a couple days rather than make request there. --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC) (nevermind)[reply]


G13 practice[edit]

At a current RfA you said

"G13 will only be a steady trickle. Although each one needs a check to see that the bot has not made an error, the deletion is procedural and does not take more than a few seconds unless one really wants to single out a potential rare page for retention"

I don't see it that way at all. For every one of them that does not meet another speedy criterion, or that would meet speedy if it were an article, I think we need to check about as carefully as with Prods to see if there is article potential. If it might be notable, and has nothing else objectionable, I do not think we should delete it. In current practice, because of the need to keep up with the bot, I don't check all of them--I skim over each batch looking quickly to see which are in a field I know about and worth investigating further. In a batch of 50, I usually look at about 10 of them, and decide that 4 or 5 can be rescued; usually 1 or 2 of them are so close I just do some reformatting and accept it, or even accept it as it stands. The others I remove the G13, and sometimes put on my own list to work on further.

And in addition, for some that strike me as suspiciously like relatively work of COI editors, I check to see if there's an existing article that needs deletion. I generally find 1 or 2; this is a good place to catch them.

The situation would be very different if the reviewing in the past had been competent, but as you know even better than I, it just wasn't, and I do not assume a rejected article should have been rejected. When it gets better, we'll be able to deal with the bad reviewing before it reaches that point, and, as you said, there should be many fewer G13s. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, and I do check each G13 fairly thoroughly about as much as I would check an expired PROD. What I do see, howeveŕ after now having deleted several hundred G13 is that the vast majority of them are absolute junk that would never be tolerated at at all in mainspace. If any of them ever get rescued it would need to be by someone who is prepared to spend som time on them, and they would have to pass the scrutiny of NPP. KudpungMobile (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The majority is certainly real junk, often to the extent that it should have been speedied when submitted, but there is about 10% worth following up. Whether one thinks this substantial depends of whether one thinks of it as a small proportion of the total, or as several thousand potential articles & a few hundred redirects. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I question to what end we take this. We both know the incubator was pretty much a failure (or if you prefer, met with very limited success). If an article is truly main-ready I can see salvaging it from G13, but another pile of "round tuit" articles isn't going to accomplish much if the incubator was any indication. Gigs (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, well over 90% of the 100s of G13 I have deleted are really horrific junk and not worth salvaging, any others would hardly attract much interest for further development if they were kept. Incubator is indeed a failed project and I see no purpose in starting another one under another name. G13 is a procedural deletion and if anyone searches for such an article and sees that it has been deleted and they want to develop it, they can always ask for a refund/userfication. I have salvaged about two, which I have turned into articles, but it only took me a couple of minutes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Jeffrd10's talk page.
Message added 03:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jeffrd10 (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Crush Saga Wiki[edit]

More details
Hi Kudpung. I am here because I would want you to come to Candy Crush Saga Wiki to solve a difficult situation between the founder of the wiki and some editors. The founder of the wiki is Lefty7788. At July 2013, he promoted me to become an administrator, and at August 2013, he then promoted another editor to become an administrator. Since then the wiki only had <100 pages. Then there came another editor, called Wildoneshelper, who had several innovative ideas to improve the wiki. He created the pages for all the levels and also the difficulties for all the levels. Unfortunately, the founder did not agree with the difficuly of some levels. Therefore, he changed the difficulty of the levels without am explanation. Thus Wildoneshelper reverted his edits. The founder, angry with him, blocked him for a few days. [1] Therefore, tension and anger increased between the two of them. Wildoneshelper, being angry, after his block, started a forum to attack the founder, which is also threatening him that he is going to tell a staff to desysop him. The founder then said, "if you desysop me, the wiki closes down, and I will ask another admin to close it down too'. [2] There was a lot of tension between them. On November, I then left a message about a new proposal (RfA, RfB and RfR) on his talk page. Another admin agreed with me as well. But then, I am not sure if the founder agreed with me. [3] There came another event. Another editor, Julianthewiki, created a '4th admin poll' blog which tell the founder "no offense, but we need more admins". [4] Of course, one of the candidates is Wildoneshelper, who had more than 3000 edits, highest edit count among all the editors in the wiki and has innovative ideas to improve the wiki. But he had some problems with the founder. He is also very eager to become an admin (see his user page). [5] Unfortunately, the founder commented on the blog post, saying "Who said there would be a 4th admin!? On 18/11/13, I am not making any more admins, regardless of who wins this poll'. Wildoneshelper saw that, and commented that he is definitely against the public. (all at 5) I saw the arguement, and the commented another thing, which persuades the founder we need more admins, and if he does not want more admins, he should at least promote some people to rollbackers. (all at 5} He heeded my word, and gave one editor rollback rights. He created another blog, Thinking of Quitting. The blog says 'I know a lot of you are thinking YAYY LEFTY IS QUITTING OMGZ IMA GET ADMIN, but too bad', and saying he is not quitting the wiki, but he is thinking to quit the game after being stuck on level 419 for a couple of days. [6] I need you to be the mediator and the persuader, and help me to convince the founder we need more admins, and also solving any conflicts between the founder and Wildoneshelper. Because the founder is scared that if there will be more admins, his rules will be gone. He is afraid that the other editors are trying to take over his rules and ignore him. I will be grateful if you can come to Candy Crush Saga Wiki and solve this terrible mess. It has prolonged for 2-3 months already. I am not sure who is right and who is wrong in that mess. Also see [7] which almost explains the whole situation. The link to Candy Crush Saga Wiki is on my user page. I know you have an account on Wikia. Thank you for your patience and understanding. JianhuiMobile talk 05:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I know nothing about Wikia. It is not a WikiMedia Foundation site, has nothing to do with us here at Wikipedia, and I do not have an account there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you don't know anything about Wikia? It works almost the same as how Wikimedia projects work. Isn't this your account? I have added references to my previous thread. This isn't asking you to play the game. It is more of administrative problems. Then can you tell me what should I do next? Thanks. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was to the Admin Tools Wiki a very long time ago. It's a place where non-admins can see what the admin toolset looks like on a MediaWiki software driven site. I've never been there since, and I wouldn't know how to log on now if I wanted to. I really have no interest in doing anything that does not concern Wikimedia Foundation sites for which I have a global log-in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you tell me what should I do then? JianhuiMobile talk 11:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea and I'm not going there to have a look – I have my work cut out here on the serious project Wikipedia. From what you describe, it looks more like an all-round maturity issue, so thank heavens it is there and not here on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Cumann Gaelach TCD[edit]

Hello, it has come to my attention that you deleted the page An Cumann Gaelach, TCD citing unambiguous advertising or promotion. I kindly request that you undo this deletion – if you have a problem with the article then I'd happily work on it with you or provide clarity for any matter. An Cumann Gaelach (The Gaelic Society) is the Trinity College, Dublin Irish language and culture society with over 1,100 members and fouded by Douglas Hyde, the first ever president of Ireland, and has been in existence for over 100 years. See this for more about the college's societies (you will also see that An Cumann Gaelach now not having a page seems out of place with the other societies). List of Trinity College, Dublin student organisations

From a notability point of view, the society has ranked as the top third level society of its kind in Ireland the last number of years, is one of the oldest societies of its kind, one of the largest student societies in Ireland, was founded by an Irish historical figure of near-incomparable importance and has many time been featured in stories by third party news outlets and on RTÉ Radio and Raidio na Life among others. The deletion has caused a bit of upset among those who have worked on maintaining the site for the last number of years. I have read the guidelines on Advertising and I do not believe the page falls into any category specified. Therefore I request that you reinstate the article. Should you have any issue with anything I have specified above I'd gladly continue to discuss it with you.

IsMiseLeMeas (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. See your user sub-page at User:IsMiseLeMeas/An Cumann Gaelach, TCD Please check immediately for WP:Copyright violations. You can do this by pasting any line of text into a Google search. Remember that the search may also return a cached version of the deleted article. Please also remove the lists of people mentioned who do not meet our notability guidelines at WP:BIO, and per lists at WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE. Please ensur that our notability requiremens at WP:ORG are fulfilled by supplying reliable, independent, 3-party sources (see: WP:RS). When the article is ready for moving back to mainspace, please ask me or another admin to review it. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am satisfied that there is no copyright violation. I have removed the lists, altered the tone to prevent any suggestion that it is advertising/promotion and added many third party references. I hope that this resolves any issues with the page and that it can now be re-instated. I believe it is up to scratch now but if there is any other issue before it is re-instated I'd be happy to work at it more. IsMiseLeMeas (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please clean up the naked URLs in the references (you can find out how to do this at WP:Cite), and then you can move the page to mainspace. If you don't know how to do that, feel free to ask me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up the bare URLs; I'd appreciate if you could move the article back now. Thank you. IsMiseLeMeas (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I have also made a couple of minor clean ups. I hope you will stick around and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC review request[edit]

If you have a few minutes, I'd appreciate your review of a few of my recent AfC decisions with any tips for improvement. I've been out of the game for a while and I want to make sure I'm still doing it right. Gigs (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gigs. I don't have time right now, but you may wish to ask Anne Delong or any of the other regulars at AfC. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion[edit]

Hi, I saw you in this category, and wondered if you would be able to give me a copy of Yodle per the comments made here please? Thanks, Matty.007 19:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably just a copy in my talk page/sandbox so that I can see if there is anything salvageable. Thanks, Matty.007 19:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. See User:Matty.007/Yodle, Inc. Please check immediately for copyvios. You can do this by pasting any line of text into a Google search. remembe that the search may also return a cached version of the deleted article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sorry for the delay. Matty.007 19:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I will do is remove all text, and simply keep the references to have a look at. Thanks again, Matty.007 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I am planning on doing is writing a new article in my sandbox; and having a look at the references used in the old article. Is a mention in the edit summary when I mainspace the article OK? Thanks, Matty.007 20:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question[edit]

What would be your views on mandatory two yearly re-elections of admins?. Those who chose open to recall would be extempt. Has this been mooted before at an official level? Hope the weather is a bit more stable. Respect as always Irondome (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) I think twice a year would be too often. I would support such a thing once a year (but not for the first year for new admins). Technical 13 (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have clarified. I meant a community appraisal once every two years. Yearly would be good. There would have to be a set of appraisals/achieved competences similar to the RFA model but tailored to a fromt line admin. It wouldnt be good if it was just a place of execution, so a structured achieved skill-sets model may work. Then general comments much like the existing RFA model. It may be good for the project and everyone. Irondome (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several aspects to this so the answer is not a quick one. Some Wikipedias (which are smaller than ours) have such systems. There would be concerns that such a system would create an even greater bureaucratic overload – one of the problems of RfA is the relatively low turnout to vote, and the actual quality of the voting. I think it's fair to say (See recent conversations at WT:RfA) that a very few RfA failed when they should probably have passed, and that equally few passed that should have failed – the number of desysops 'for cause' partly demonstrates this. Another fear is that knowing they would come under review again would discourage many possible candidates of the right calibre from running for office; RfA is still very much a trial by fire even for those who pass with flying colours, and to have to go through it again at regular intervals, especially for the 20 or 30 most active admins who work in the front line who attract flak for simply doing their job correctly.
While we could probably argue for a sharpening of the 'inactivity' ctiteria, or introduce qualifications for voters, setting minimum criteria for candidates is probably not required – the community already sets the criteria themselves with their own voting patterns, and ironically, one of the frequently mentioned criticisms is that those standards are too high.
That said, I think this conversation would have more impact if it were at WT:RfA.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Respect Irondome (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some RfA stuff[edit]

Hi Kudpung, I am not going to ask about Wikia again. But according to WP:Age and adminship, is anyone 16 years old eligible to become an admin here? I may ask someone to nomimate me after my national exams next year (I am secondary 4 next year). And does one who always does vandalism fighting will pass one's RfA? If you look at my (Jianhui67) contributions, I mostly did reverting vandals, except some cases of filling in references using Reflinks. I saw that you have opposed Lugia's RfA, because he only did vandalism fighting. You even told him to put down his machine gun (Huggle) and get down to some content building work. I know he has 87% automated edits. For me, it's 51% automated edits. So do I stand a chance passing my RfA next year if I mostly done vandalism fighting? I am afraid even next year you might oppose me. :/ JianhuiMobile talk 04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any registered user is eligible, but please read WP:Advice for RfA candidates very carefully and thoroughly and follow all the links and footnotes in it – I wrote it and it's become the major RfA advice essay. There is a general feeling that minors may not have reached a sufficient level of maturity for adminship. Those who do pass have generally demonstrated above average qualities for their age. The community is also wary of any users who appear to be too eager to become admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then one who only does vandalism fighting can pass one's RfA? Out of my 5350 edits, at least 80% of them come from fighting vandalism. If I were to be an admin, I will be a great help to AIV. But I saw that Lugia's RfA failed because he mostly did fighting vandalism and has 87% automated edits. I have 51% automated edits. If i have time after fighting vandalism as an admin, I will monitor PERM requests (I stalk PERM everyday). I am not someone who only does cool talk. JianhuiMobile talk 04:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:Advice for RfA candidates and follow all the links, reading list, and footnotes in it, you'll soon see that there is a heck of a lot more to becoming an admin than a lot of successful vandal fighting. Do remember also that a lot of the regular voters at RfA are very experienced adults, and quite a few of them are my age. That doesn't mean for a moment that we have anything against younger users or admins, in fact we welcome it, but as you have read in various advice essays already, they need to demonstrate exceptional qualities, and demonstrate a very broad knowledge of a lot of complex policies. I think you should take a couple of hours to read through any of those pages you haven't visited yet. Don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions though – I'm here to help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(A new stalker appears!) Jianhui, you may want to read over Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lugia2453, this will give you an idea of the sort of concerns people will have with a primarily-vandal-fighter who wants the bit. It's not just about percentages either, people want to see you actually participate in article development. This doesn't mean just writing an article, they want to see you interact with other editors that disagree with you, and how you handle that. Vandal fighting of course includes its share of people challenging your decisions, but the vast majority of the challenging in that case is from the vandal, who you can often easily get blocked through ARV for harassing you. You rarely have to compromise or hash things out during vandal fighting, and that's what people are mainly concerned about, less so than the content itself. Gigs (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Gigs: What if I work with either files and get the file mover right, or templates and get the template editor right, will people still have concerns about me only doing plain vandal fighting? I am used to go to RC and revert vandalism everyday, rather than going to do content building, working with files or templates. If you can see my contributions (Jianhui67), all you see is vandalism fighting and reporting vandals to AIV, nothing else other than that. Because I'm kind of used to that already. I know about Lugia's RfA failure, which I do not want to see mine RfA to become an identical Lugia's RfA failure. JianhuiMobile talk 17:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: Also see what I said to Gigs above. I have went through a lot of times about the various RfAs advisories, even your RfA criteria. I'm afraid I will not meet up to your standard. I know you are 60+ years old (in your user page), and very experienced. Perhaps I should get the file mover or template editor right first to demonstrate I am not the person who only does vandalism fighting? Errr, kind of confused now. JianhuiMobile talk 17:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)IMO, and I don't really know how this correlates to Kudpung's ideas: that probably won't cut it. The thing that I think people look for most is good judgement, particularly when it comes to dealing with people. Content creation, in addition to being of primary importance to the encyclopedia in general and relevant to the actual reality of being an admin, shows that you have at least some kind of judgement about what is okay and not okay according to Wikipedia's policies. Things like dispute resolution and the like show this kind of judgement as well, and it shows it through interaction with other editors, which is of prime importance to being ad admin. The problem with vandalfighting, and to a lesser extent template development/file management, is that it's often done in a vacuum, with little or no interaction with other users. This makes it very difficult to get a sense of a user's judgement if that's all they've been doing. It's very easy to just Huggle away at the recent changes list without ever having to demonstrate real sound judgement when it comes to the core of Wikipedia. Not that any of that is bad, or that it reflects badly on you (it certainly doesn't, quite the opposite!). But it doesn't give RFA voters much to work with when they're trying to get a sense of what you'll be like as an admin. It's not that "people don't want vandalfighters as admins", it's that "vandalfighting, etc. alone doesn't provide enough information about a candidate to determine whether they'll be a good admin". The thing is that the role of "admin" encompasses many different things, not just vandalfighting, and to pass RfA, people have to trust you to handle all of them at least pretty reasonably, so specializing in the purely maintenance side of things gives people no insight as to how you'll handle the rest of it. Even if you insist that you'll only do maintenance things, you're given the capability to handle all of it (and I can attest that you will find yourself, as an admin, handling things you never expected to be handling), and people need to know that you're ready for that.disclaimer: my own RfA succeeded and went actually pretty well, even though I didn't have much content creation under my belt and not overly many edits; only two DYKs at the time. I also happen to be taking a break from adminning, for what I like to think are principled but what in reality are probably just petty political reasons. C'est la vie, yeah? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Don't get rights just to say you have them. Find something other than vandalism that interests you naturally and just get involved with that. Getting the admin bit isn't an award for work done. It's not an Xbox achievement. Gigs (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent point Gigs; that too. Don't do things just because it'll look good on your wiki-resume: do what you like. If that's vandalism patrol, then do vandalism patrol. Don't worry about becoming an admin; do what you do, and if admin comes, then it comes. If it doesn't, then it doesn't; it's not a big deal. Becoming an admin is not the win condition of Wikipedia: not everyone needs to or does become one. In fact, most people don't. I'll cop to having that "wanna be an admin" bug when I first started at Wikipedia, but after a month or so, I looked at myself and asked, "Self, what am I actually doing here?" I then decided on a policy: a) I wouldn't do things just to make me look good in an RfA, and b) I wouldn't actually run for RfA until good editors (i.e. people I would've liked to nominate me for RfA) came to me, unbidden and of their own accord, to ask me if I wanted to run at RfA. That policy served me quite well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At my age (yes, 60+ and a bit more!) we don't really care whether we are admins or not; we've been through life, been there and got a wardrobe full of T-shirts, gotten our books published, and met the the Prime Minister and Jimmy Wales. There's no excitement or big deal about being one of the 1,400 admins on Wikipedia. And there's no schoolyard within miles to impress the girls in Grade 9 with it. I put up a lot of resistance to becoming an admin until I succumbed to a whole bunch of experienced admins and editors told me I really ought to run for office. My RfA was no walk in the park though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than make a new section, I'll put this here, since it seems the most relevant place. In my own lexicon, and methinks in the lexicon of most wikipedia-readers, Jianhui *is* already an admin. Kudpung is a post-RfA sysop, but even before they had the bit, Kudpung was already recognized by their peers (other admins!) as deserving the bit. Jianhui, part of the reason you are confused, is that almost *everybody* seems to be confused about what it really means to be an admin.

the tale of the admin who wished they were not

  Kudpung is old-school by wikipedia standards; it has nothing to do with physical age, or at least, not much to do with physical age. Kudpung thinks adminship, the actual RfA stuff, the possession of the bit, is No Big Deal. Simultaneously, and seemingly-in-direct-contradiction, Kudpung has a list of thirty must-have WP:MMORPG credentials that even the *least* qualified RfA-candidate must pass! The explanation of the conundrum is this: Kudpung believes that adminship is a very high honour indeed, but that *directly* striving to achieve that particular specific honor inherently is a Bad Thing. Being an admin requires the correct morality.

  As you are prolly well aware, there is such a thing as lust for power. It should be perfectly obvious, Kudpung does not have it. They had to be cajoled, begged, drafted, almost bullied into going through the RfA process, at all. It is a natural humility. Not by coincidence, that is exactly the sort of admin wikipedia really needs: the kind that does not lust for power, but has power thrust on them, partly because they are skilled, partly because they are experienced, partly because they are diplomatic... but mostly and primarily because they Do Not Want the power they are being given. Skilled/experienced/nice admins with no lust for power, will do what wikipedia needs. Skilled/experienced/nice admins with even a slight lust for power, will destroy wikipedia.

  So, please, Jianhui, do not be confused. You are clearly an asset to all the wikis that you contribute to. You are seeking honor, and seeking recognition for whether or not you have achieved some measure of honor yet, and seeking ways you can be even more honourable. That is good! But you must take the zen approach. When you are doing your "vandal-fighting" work, strive to be excellent. Strive to make your actions embody the five pillars. Most importantly, strive to assume good faith: the most dangerous part of "vandal-fighting" work is that you can come to forget your true purpose, and think of your work as "vandal-fighting", and see your opponents as "vandals". That is the dark path; it should never lead to adminship. Your true work is wiki protection, preservation of The Good, and your true opponent is ignorance and clumsiness. Vandalism exists, it is true, but there is no such thing as a vandal, out to screw up a wiki for lulz. Those editors are just poor ignorant contributors, who believe that destructive contributions will bring them more joy than *making* something, and *improving* something. They are most sadly deluded. But they are not evil; some can yet be saved.

  All folks that take joy in protecting the wiki, and in preserving The Good, are constructively contributing. Thank you, deeply. But do not forget the first half of the WikiCop motto, to serve and to protect. Look over the RfA-criteria-list that Kudpung has provided, and categorize it into two columns: second role, protecting the wiki and protecting the wiki-editors; first role, serving the wiki and serving the wiki-editors. This is not an easy task. Consider NPP duty; which column does it fall into? Well, protection, right? Stop the vandals. Stop the spammers. Drive them away from the wiki. Delete the garbage. Fight the bad guys. Clean up Dodge City. Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes. What more is there? The answer is: everything.

  NPP is a service-role, not a protection-role. NPP is about giving guidance to beginning editors, about helping improve the wiki by adding well-sourced clearly-written new content. It is called New Page Patrol for a reason... if it was a 'vandal-fighting' job, it would be called Shoot First And Ask Questions Later Patrol, would it not? Many of the raw recruits doing NPP see it as a 'vandal-fighting' job, and glory in their high percentage of deletes-to-keeps, and tune their workflow to maximize the number of deletes-per-hour they achieve. These sorts of recruits must never become admins, because they will abuse the ban-hammer and the powerful wiki-tools in exactly the same way. As their power grows, so will their glory, and so will their lust for glory. As an admin, they cannot be blocked. The seeds of wheel wars are sowed in this manner.

  Please, though, do not take my tales of powerlust as an accusation against you personally; I have never looked over your edit-history, and I have never interacted with you before. In fact, you should take it as a compliment: based on your questions to Kudpung, I thought you exemplary, and thus worthy of the effort to relate the tale, and did my best to do so as clearly as I could. My advice is simple. If you wish to become an admin, to prove you are an honorable contributor, then you must strive to become an honorable contributor, and sooner or later, adminship will be thrust upon you. I myself will *never* seek adminship, because I have looked into the process deeply, and the requirements of the process, and then looked inside myself... and seen that small flame, the lust for power. I would be a very good admin, skilled, experienced, diplomatic... and eventually corrupted. I love the wiki more than I lust for power, so I will purposely (personally) stay far away from adminship.

  If you look inside yourself, during the next few months, and see that you love the wiki, and that you have no lust for power, that is a good sign. If you see your work as service, rather than as fighting, and you see the editors you interact with as needing your guidance, rather than as your opponents to vanquish, that is a *very* good sign. If you find that you start seeking honor, by striving to be more honourable, and have no more worries about becoming an admin, or desire to plan the tactics for your navigation of the RfA process, then you will have achieved the zen state of the true contributor. Finally, just when you no longer desire to be an admin, you will become one, against your will. If, like me, you never do achieve the state of zen necessary to become the no-big-deal-admin, then you should thank your lucky stars, that you avoided all that mopwork -- then go on contributing anyways, enjoying the wikiverse, and striving to honor it in whatever ways are best-suited to your impressive skills. Hope this helps. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@74.192.84 101: I thank you for all your advice above. Why don't you just create an account to log in instead? JianhuiMobile talk 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome; please call me 74, think of it as a jersey number. As you probably can guess, it was not only written for you, although I did in fact write it all down for the first time after reading your questions. I will prolly be remixing it into the Wikipedia Survival Guide, later, see WP:RETENTION talkpage. As for your question, I'm personally against named pseudonyms for philosophical reasons: "the encyclopedia anybody can edit" is the rule around here, after all, and sometimes people forget. I'm trying to improve boht-messages at the moment, and I get many more YOUR HARMFUL ACTION HAS BEEN STOPPED messages as an anon, that I would never even see as a registered uid. I'm not against people registering their UID, or even making elaborate userpages/uidsigs/etc ... they are showing they are proud to be wikipedians, in their fashion, and for that I am proud of them. My own counterintuitive way to show pride in being a wikipedian is to not login; see also, Dead Poet's Society, clapping scene. p.s. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 is open for a couple more days, and worth looking at for wisdom; as a bonus, there are fewer ArbCom candidates than RfA candidates... well... most years!... and the process is somewhat less poisonous. ;-) &nbps; &nbps; Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this long rambling comment, and will now summarise an important point for the talk page owner: Kudpung, you should stand for arbcom! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But first let's get the AfC moral-criteria stuff up and running.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Hi, thanks for leaving that message on my talk page. I am confused about the fact that I have only 174 edits to Wikipedia; currently I have 212 edits, according to my Preferences. Can you please leave another message on my talk page if you think you have made a mistake, or if I have misunderstood something? Thanks! TheTriple M 18:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae see https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&name=The+Triple+M There is a 3-day replication lag on the ToolServer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...not available on my laptop. Sorry! TheTriple M 03:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that – it's a standard URL to a secure site. Perhaps you should adjust your browser settings or type http instead of https. You could also try simply clicking on User > Edit count in the tabs at the top of your user page or talk page. Anyway, without any disrespect intended, that edit count by Wikipedia standards is still extremely low. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. I am aware of the fact that I am an inexperienced Wikipedian. I merely wanted to request rollback rights since I thought I have exceeded 200 edits. Apologies. TheTriple M 03:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I was referring to in my message on your tp was about your participation at an RfA, which if I remember rightly was made after the discussion had been closed. I also thought it would be helpful to give you some links to pages that will explain more about our RfA system and adminship in general. As far as Rollback is concerned, I do not believe a request at the moment would be successful. The 200 edit thing is what you need to enroll at the WP:CVUA to learn more about it. However, if you can demonstrate that you have sufficient knowledge of policies and have made a couple of hundred manual vandalism reverts and got them all right, you may then find a request would be approved. Anyway, don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions about anything – I'm here to help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) To be honest CVUA is a bit zzz now. But I will be willing to take in any students after 10 November because I have a camp (STC) from 8-10 November. And because of that I will be away from 8 November 2013 04:00 UTC to 10 November 2013 07:00 UTC, though I have not put a notice on my talk page (I am putting on 7 November). JianhuiMobile talk 05:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. And just wondering, why is this section called RfA? I am far from having enough experience to become an admin, nor do I have any wish to become one currently. TheTriple M 17:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) You called it that in this edit, so I suspect you had been reading the other posts on Kudpung's page, and got confused. Thanks, Matty.007 17:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translating a page[edit]

Hi, I need this page to be translated in French as soon as possible. Please if you can help me about it and I'll be greatly appreciated. Hooman Khalatbari Best Regards Entekhabat (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, but I am active on the en.Wiki only. I do French → English translations for the benefit of our Wikipedia here. Perhaps you should ask at the French Wikipedia.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look at this?[edit]

After reading your comment Here I am concerned This is an issue, if for no other reason than it is a hoax article. But would appreciate more experienced eyes on it. Lettik (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obviously a hoax and not even a copyvio of some else on the Internet. beats me why people go to such trouble.to creat stuff like this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The day I figure out why, is the day I retire from the Internet :) Thanks for your input and help Lettik (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DB-Hoax doesn't apply to user pages, so as it uses a potential real name, I've tagged for deletion per WP:CSD#G10. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do speedy user pages under hoax occasionally. Rough consensus seems to be that it needs to be clear cut though, not just false information, from a recent discussion. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's possible of course if it's done manually. Twinkle however, only lists the criteria that are directly relevant to user pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why anyone would think that db-hoax doesn't apply to user pages. I will delete any page anywhere if I am convinced that it's a blatant hoax. As for "it needs to be clear cut though, not just false information", any db-hoax needs to be clear cut, otherwise it isn't a "blatant" hoax, and I see no reason why this should be any different for user pages than for any other pages. Finally, Twinkle, Huggle, Igloo, Stiki, etc etc are just tools, and letting what they will and will not do determine what one regards as possible options is letting the tail wag the dog. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New email[edit]

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JianhuiMobile talk 06:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the email I have sent to you? Please quickly reply because I am going to go soon. JianhuiMobile talk 03:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accumulating several or all of the minor user rights is not necessarily conducive to to passing at RfA. n our Wikipedia terminology, it's often regarded as what we call 'hat collecting'. See the essay. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not hat collecting and I am not that kind of person who would do that. Do anyone who only has reviewer and rollbacker rights pass a RfA? Even if there is, is it frequent or rare? And don't need to keep whisperback on my talk page as I am watching your talk page. Thanks. JianhuiMobile talk 03:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These questions are all addressed if you would read the pages I linked you too. The next most important exercise is to review a couple of hundred RfA that did ot succeed and see the reasons why they failed, and the qualifications the candidates brought with them. You need to start doing your own research instead of asking me to illustrate isolated points for you regarding adminship. You need also to understand that even if it looks as if I am, and that I generally reply extremely quickly to messages, I am not online 24/7. You are welcome to ask other admins your questions, but i'm fairly sure you will get the same answers if you link them to this discussion. I've answered your email that also turned out not to be urgent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to be seen as if I am pestering you. If you feel it that way, I truly apologize. I just wanted to ask you what I should do. Perhaps I should start my own research now. I am very sorry about what I did. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be a good idea. When I wrote WP:Advice for RfA candidates I tried very hard to cover absolutely everything, including the links to the other advice pages, users' voting criteria, and examples of RfA that went wrong or were unusual. If you are interested in becoming an admin sometime in the not too distant future, the least you can do is to invest a couple of hours reviewing all that material. Good luck! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERM is strictly an admin area. You really do not have sufficient experience to do this, and that will also look to some as definitely being over eager to become an admin. There are plenty of things you can do without monitoring that page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New RFC on draft namespace[edit]

Hello,

As one of the participants in the previous related discussion, you are requested to comment on the RFC on creating a new Draft namespace at the Village Pump.

Thank you, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make Up For Ever[edit]

Are you sure you want to tag this as A7? I think the claim its owned by LVMH (a multi-national conglomerate) is significant enough, and indeed the brand is mentioned in this Reuters source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, does that one source suffice for WP:GNG and WP:ORG? Are there any substantial claims in the article to significance or importance? Is notability inherited from being owned by a notable company? The reason I tagged it is because I knew that a second admin would have to review it before final deletion. If xhe declines it, I won't be offended. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for a second admin opinion on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG with one source, but that's a question for AfD, though, not for CSD. And yes, I think "this brand is owned by LVMH and available in notable stores" is good enough for CSD (although not necessarily anything else). A search for "Make Up For Ever" plus "LVMH" brings up many sources, including GCI Magazine and Bloomberg – not necessarily significant coverage, but enough that I would not feel confident in declaring it a given result that the AfD would definitely result in "Delete" (as distinct from "Redirect" or "Merge", which I feel is a more likely outcome). All that said, I'll leave the tag up for now as the article's creator needs to understand that adding new undersourced articles and hoping other people will fix them up isn't really on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am the admin that Kudpung asked for "a second admin opinion on it", but by the time I logged in and saw his message, the speedy deletion had already been declined by another admin. However, I will give my opinion, which has become a third, rather than second. I agree with the speedy deletion nomination. I really don't see how a brand being owned by a significant company makes the brand ipso facto significant. However, as I have repeatedly said in various discussions, speedy deletion criterion A7 is so vaguely defined that it is impossible to tell what it means. "...does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" – but there is a huge range of differing opinions on what counts as "important or significant". Nowhere, to the best of my knowledge, is there any attempt to define or clarify that expression. Evidently to Ritchie333 anything owned by "a multi-national conglomerate" is automatically important or significant, but to me it isn't: there are probably thousands of things owned by multi-national conglomerates that I wouldn't regard as remotely significant. There is a long-established consensus that notability is not inherited from association with something or someone else notable, but is "importance or significance" inherited? I would say no. Since, counting both this discussion and the speedy deletion decline, there are two of us who think A7 applies and two that don't, AfD might be reasonable. (Incidentally, if it does go to AfD I shall strongly oppose any "merge" suggestion.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, James. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
Just to be clear, the main motivation for me turning down A7s is WP:BITE. After having discussed Wikipedia with several people offline, a regular complaint I hear is "I created an article about 'x' and the next day it was gone – no warning! I hate Wikipedia." Therefore, I prefer to send things to a full discussion via AfD if there is any merit in doing so. My key reason for contesting the speedy isn't really anything to do with "All companies' offshoots are inherently significant" but because I found some coverage in sources, albeit only brief passing mentions. I would support an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, no worries. I knew it was a borderline A7 anyway, that's why I said I wouldn't be offended if it were declined – in fact I actually expected James to decline it when I asked him to take a look. It's at AfD now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent RfA discussion[edit]

Hi Kudpung. I agree that the thread was actually very valuable, and the tone and quality of input was impressive. I totally reject my initial premise, based on research and the wealth of information at the RfA task force noticeboard, with essays and previous discussions. We are losing admins, and at the mo it appears to be the 2006-7 vintage group of admins that are keeping us going. But the lack of new "blood" is alarming. I agree that the issue is not yet critical, but a potential crisis in admin numbers may be reached in 2 or 3 years which will make the day to day functioning of Eng WP problematic. I have joined the RfA task force active membership list, and will confine my input there in future on this issue. Thanks as always for your encouragement and wise words, based on that scarce commodity, experience. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irondome. We also need new blood in discussions about RfA reform (or improvement). Thanks for your participation, and thank you indeed for the kind words :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Jinkinson[edit]

Hello Kudpung, I wanted to request an RFA nomination from you, since your name is on the list. I don't think I am ready yet and want to know what I need to improve so that maybe I can be ready for an RFA someday. Jinkinson talk to me 05:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very first thing to do is to read WP:Advice for RfA candidates – all of it, including the linked pages and linked footnotes, and then read this. When you've done all that, get back to me and we'll talk more. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read both pages. With regard to the second one, the one in your userspace, I don't think I meet all of the criteria, but I do think I meet most of them. In particular with regard to 7 and 9, for example, I don't know how to calculate the exact figures, but I have been new pages patrolling for about 2 months now, and on several occasions I have had a CSD tag I placed on an article removed. These cases are in the minority, though. With regard to #19, I have been dragged to WP:DRN by one editor who accused me of stalking him and personally attacking him. See here for more details about that. So, in conclusion, I think I have made a lot of progress toward being ready, though not as much as I could have, and I would like to get some feedback from you as to whether I should or should not be nominated. Jinkinson talk to me 04:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replied by email. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Oh wow, cheers, thank you very much! This round is on me... GiantSnowman 14:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPP mentoring[edit]

Hi Kudpung, I am very impressed with your proposed mentoring system. I would be interested in some sort of apprenticeship for NPP. Are you still guiding editors in that area? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keithbob. I created the school but due to time constraints I'm not currently active on it. If you are interested in learning more about NPP, please consider asking one of the trainers at the WP:CVUA. That said, you have:
  • 32,619 edits since 2008 of which 63.55% are to mainspace
  • regular editing at an average of over 500 edits per month and not a single month without an edit
  • 18 articles created
  • Significant participation in AIV, ANI, etc
  • Voted on 9 RfA
  • Voted on 22 AfD, votes matched the result 76.5%
  • Good use of edit summaries
  • Stiki user
  • an impressive number of barnstars,
  • Clean block log
  • Rollbacker and reviewer rights

What you should be aiming at now is adminship. See WP:Advice for RfA candidates. I wrote that so if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung. Sorry to hear you are not mentoring for NPP anymore, but I fully understand your time constraints. I'll have a look at CVUA as you've suggested. And thanks for the analysis of my WP work and for suggesting a new direction for me. I'll read your essay and think it over. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Article[edit]

I received a notice when I edited the Article Benzie County Courthouse that it was tagged for deletion. I just wanted to post a picture of this building and did not purposefully tag it for deletion. I can't find where I can eliminate this tag. I am hoping that someone with more savy can prevent this. It is a valid article.

Wingerham52

Wingerham52 (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wingerham52, The speedy deletion tag was removed already on 29 October 2013‎ by Chris857 who has worked a lot on the article since. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make Up For Ever[edit]

Hi, I'm aware that there's another thread above for this but I wanted to start a fresh one. I wanted to let you know that I found several news articles about this company. I don't know how far you searched but I found quite a bit of articles from reputable newspapers and magazines. I will admit that I'm still a little on the fence whether the company may be notable because they haven't received that much press but it's certainly something it hasn't been ignored therefore it's something I'm mulling over. I should mention that I found a fair amount of the links on Google News archives on my first search with "Make Up For Ever cosmetics Dany Sanz". I'd appreciate your comments, SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my verdict on those links. It took me an hour to do this which is far more than what the article is worth:
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I was on the fence because the news coverage isn't that much especially considering they've been around since 1984 and all we have here are some articles from the early 2000's and more present. The Toronto Star mention is viewed off the page because of the paywall. Regarding the Google Books, I mentioned many of those were not useful aside from maybe the 2003 Elle which doesn't describe much. I'm probably towards delete now but I'll wait for additional votes. Thanks for your time by the way, SwisterTwister talk 16:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi, is this blockable, for creating a couple of hoax/nonsense pages? Thanks, Matty.007 12:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, they've been blocked, thanks. Matty.007 16:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

The Really Nice View for Really Nice Work Award
Hello Kudpung, I saw that you have been doing some really nice work on Wikipedia, particularly on AFD and other admin-y areas; so thought that you deserved to be the second recipient of the 'Really Nice View' award. Congratulations! Matty.007 16:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't edit my Sandbox anymore[edit]

because of the semi-edit thing, is there a way that only I can edit it but when I link it to others they can't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissEnoshima (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is because you requested it to be semi proteced. Because your account has not yet been registered for 4 days, you are not able to edit protected pages. However, I have manually confirmed your account so you should be able to edit your sandbox now. Please remember to sign your messages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Hi Kudpung, Titodutta asked me on my talk page whether I'd go for RfA. Given our previous discussion(s) I thought I'd let you know and see if you wanted to comment? Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, but I didn't comment because you and I discussed this a while back. For security reasons, I delete all my Wikipedia mail that is more than a couple of weeks old, so please send me a copy of any suggestions I made previously, and I'll take another look. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm searching through the old ones now. There will be a few email threads. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel[edit]

Hi Kudpung, do you entertain Revdel requests? I checked some of the admin listed at [[Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests]], but none seems to be active right now.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what it is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed you. See if you can do it! --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything there that requires a revision deltion. If vandalism is persistent please request semi page protection at WP:RPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
k --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 11:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I read the message about the article "Henning Solvang" and i changed it the way it should be. If you want to check the changes or change the article yourself go here Henning Solvang Please tell me if you think the article is good enough to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandark1 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HoneyMustard777[edit]

Hello Kudpung,

I want to know why the IMS page I created was deleted. The page didn't advertise anything or use marketing language. The page was very similar to other companies that offer the same services. If there is any other violation, please let me know and I will fix it. The page also didn't qualify for speedy deletion.

- HoneyMustard777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoneyMustard777 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the full explanation on your talk page regarding this article (multiple recreations, now salted) and your use of multiple accounts (sockpuppetry, possible block evasion). Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Jianhui67's talk page.
Message added 10:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Hi Kudpung! Thanks for deleting the latest incarnation of Patrick Ekpotu ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Since the subject is reasonably notable, and the editor in question doesn't appear to have a clue about copyvio or Wikipedia, I've put him out of his misery and created a referenced stub at Patrick Ekpotu. I'll keep it on watch to make sure there are no shenanigans. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stats on Admins[edit]

Hey, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,
I don't mean to pester you but I think you know more about the RfA process than anyone else. I've found different pages, for different years (none labeled "2013" yet) for RfA reform, but I can't find anything similar to the Editor surveys that WMF ran back in 2011. Has there been any study or survey of Admins or of adminship in your memory? I imagine that nothing like this was attempted in the early years so it would date from 2008-> . Let me know if anything comes to mind...thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, not that I know of. No major study of adminship ship was made at all until the in-depth project I launched at WP:RFA2011. Because adminship is local (and very different) on each Wikipedia, the Foundation is not particularly interested. Unless we have extremely good grounds for WMF help, we have to do such research ourselves. This is however quite easy for those who have the time to do it; we have plenty of users with knowledge of regex and access to the ToolServer. depends exactly what you would like to know, and if it would be helpful and for what purpose. You might find some useful information behind these links:

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is awesome information, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I came to the right place! Yes, I didn't think WMF has much interest in adminship, especially because each Wikipedia handles Admins differently (or as you say, it's localized).
I don't know much about regex and ToolServer although I do have access to the Wiki Labs. But I'm not a coder or programmer (beyond HTML). When I worked on research projects, I was a qualitative researcher with light stats (i.e., whatever I could come up with without using a software program).
Sometimes one approaches a subject with a question one wants to answer. But in this case, my thinking is what questions can be answered from the data that is available (Date of registration/user rights, contribution records and record of Admin actions). So, a few things come immediately to mind:
  • Analysis of RfAs (Successful vs. unsuccessful over time, Successful RfAs compared to the number of active Admins, for successful RfAs, the average length of time the candidate is a registered Editor, etc.)
  • Admins (Average length of tenure before becoming inactive, are there periods of inactivity, level of Admin actions and duration of tenure, rate of retirement (inactive and desysop'd) compared to the number of active Admins, etc.)
  • Actions (Does the kind of Admin activity change from some areas to others the longer one is an Admin? Do most Admins target certain areas or "do what needs to be done"? Are some areas of Admin activity more stressful (higher burnout rate, less time spent on them over time)?)
  • Departure (How Admins leave, % of Admins who resign vs. just go inactive, are there any habits that desyoped (for cause) Admins share, etc.)
That's off the top of my head. I think what most interests me is not the absolute stats but how they have changed over time. I have a gut feeling about how the role of Admins and the make-up of Admins has changed over the past 12 years but I don't have any data to back it up. While I come at this sociologically, my interest is actually historical, I'm interested in how organizations change as they grow and mature. I think the skills and attitudes that might have been valued in Admins in 2003 is drastically different from the expectations users have for Admins in 2013.
Luckily, it's nothing that needs to be done this week or even this month or even this year. With input, the questions can be refined, become more focused, and we can discover the best tools to answer the questions that are settled upon. While I don't want to rely on anecdotal information, since I'm not an Admin, input from Admins would be incredibly useful. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, apart from rare additions and occasional unbundling of the Admin toolset, the actual admin job description hasn't changed. Much of the data you refer to is in the various tables and graphs in WP:RFA2011; there's been another almost 3 years of activity since, but overall the patterns have not changed except for the critical decline in candidates, and the increasing number of admins leaving through burn out and the mounting attacks from the anti-admin brigade. Not enough admins get desyoped for patterns of poor behaviour, while those who reliquish their tools voluntarily are mostly our most active and fairest. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#A look back..., and the discussions on the current unarchived page at WT:RfA which are some of the best we have had there in recent years, and which also answers some of your questions above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Early Maturation Learning Controversy[edit]

Thanks, looks like a copyviol to me, but I couldn't nail it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not found. Please send again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, I sent you an email a few days ago. Did you receive it? If so, no rush, just after seeing this, wanted to make sure. Go Phightins! 02:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've just found it. All my Wikipedia email is on a separate computer which I don't take with me when I am travelling. I'll see if I can look into it, but I'm going to be very busy for the next few days for complex issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Go Phightins! 00:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An issue[edit]

Kudpung, please can you go over to Dolphin-class submarine talk? I am being accused of being some kind of military agent, after I reverted a piece of patent Non RS nonsense. I have deleted the more egrarious attacks. I have never had this situation before. The editor appears to have massive POV issues and assumes all editors are agents of CIA, MI6 etc if they disagree with them. Unsure if I have done right thing, but I am not letting that crap stand. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't revioewed the content diffs because I'm an no expert on the subject. However, I think you responded with a touch of anger there which was not quite the best thing to do however much you were baited. I think you'll have to sort this one out yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing my best Irondome (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two great minds...[edit]

...with the same thought . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I had actually drafted an almost identical reply, but thought better of it – there's too much talk of admins being bitey ;) Thank you for being bold and spelling it out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bitey? Moi? Mais oui! I have no problem biting straight-talking to people like this. I do it to at least one PR/paid editor a day, e.g. [5], Special:PermanentLink/581686014#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher O'Connor. The more they realize that there are editors here who can see through their shenanigans the better. Who knows, maybe the word will get 'round. It has become utterly pernicious and what really makes me mad are that legitimate newbies, who could provide us with a genuinely helpful new article (however rough around the edges) and even become long-term contributors, are languishing in a 2000 draft queue filled with PR garbage. Grrrrr. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this one, but not from AfC. I found it via copyright clean up. Allons enfants de la Wiki! Voceditenore (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PRODed, see rationale. I realise you did your best to clean it up mais c'est la vie ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quel philistinisme, Kudpung! The permanent (and only) symphony orchestra in a metropolitan area of almost 300,000 people would be notable regardless. But I've found quite a lot of national coverage of it, especially in the early years—Time Magazine, New York Times, etc. and loads of coverage in Minnesota. So I removed the PROD. A lot of the stuff is behind pay walls, or at least the complete articles are. Maybe I can get the DSSO and their PR folk to do something useful and provide it to us. The orchestra's history is quite fascinating—Tauno Hannikainen was one of its conductors—but so far they've seemed only interested in making sure our readers know how to buy tickets to their concerts and that they click on as many links to their website as possible Special:PermanentLink/581393752#Music Director. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, I live and learn, même à mon âge ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're online[edit]

Please get in touch with me by Skype or email. Either right now , or after 10:30 NY Time, eg, in an hour DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

Userpage[edit]

Wiktivity section. It is Wikimedia, not WikiMedia. ;-) --Glaisher [talk] 16:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:SHFW70[edit]

Just a note, user:SHFW70 has now breached 3rr policy on Basilosaurus with no signs of changing behavior. it is becoming a notable disruption across a broad range of pages and topics. --Kevmin § 04:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so many youngsters have noticed my depredations here. I'm just destroying articles left and right! What will happen when there are no more redundant terms??? SHFW70 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevmin, you've warned him formally now, and a block would certnly be appropriate. However, Let's let that be enough for the moment. But one more PA or blatantly unacceptable ES or another revert will result in a block. I don't like to see otherwise 'expert' contributors being blocked if they can be encouraged to collaborate constructively and within our policies. However, I can't speak for other admins who may be quicker on the trigger.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Davey2010's talk page.
Message added 15:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heffron Drive[edit]

Hello. First, I was curious as to how you found Heffron Drive, as it was patrolled and dropped off of Special:NewPages, but that is not important. You tagged it for speedy deletion under A7. While doing WP:NPP, I came across someone new to Wikipedia who wrote an article about the band, it had no sources if I remember correctly, and was in bad shape, I googled it to see if it was notable as I don't think the article creator made a claim of significance, and I found that it meet WP:GNG, so I go back to the article and find that it has already been deleted under A7. It appeared to me that it the admin who deleted or whoever tagged it didn't even google it to see if it is was even significant, if not notable. So I created an article about the band, and when I saved, I found that yet another article had been created, then subsequently deleted, during the time that I was writing. I saved it, included multiple sources, and established that it met WP:GNG, and made a claim of significance. I was thus perplexed as to why you found that it met A7. Taken from the contestation I made on the talk page:

Wow. I never thought I would be on the receiving end of a speedy. This article not only makes a claim of significance, which is all that is needed to void an A7 claim, it is notable and would hold up in an AFD. Two separate things. It has lots of coverage in multiple sources, including the huffington post and not only fails WP:CSD#A7, but meets WP:GNG. I resurrected this article after I found others improperly using A7 on it while I was new page patrolling. WP:CSD#A7 even says that it doesn't have to have a source to support the claim of significance which this article makes, although this article has plenty of sources.

Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During time that I was writing this up, the speedy was declined, however, my question still stands. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Kaye[edit]

Hello Kudpung,

Thanks for leaving me a comment about my page of Charlene Kaye! I feel she is significant enough to have her own Wikipedia page, given she is linked to under Chaparral High School's notable alumni and U of Michigan's notable alumni, as well as an associated act on Darren Criss and StarKid's Wikipedia page. She has over 20,000 followers on Twitter and Facebook and is quite well known in America. As for reliable music sources, is VH1 and Popmatters not significant enough? What do you consider notable press?

Thank you for your time and please let me know if there's anything else I can do.

Julian — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianStarky (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The subject may be notable and that's why I haven't tagged it for deletion yet. However, sources are everything and must comply with our guidelines at Reliable Sources. They must provide in-depth coverage from established 3rd party publications. This generally disallows Primary Sources, blogs, social networking sites, YouTube, and other sources closely connected with the subject or for which the subject has provided the content themseles (e.g. interviews). Such sources may corroborate some of the content but they do not assert notability. (Twitter, FaceBook, and YouTube links are disallowed and will be removed). Above all, this biographical article of a living soperson must meet the criteria at WP:Musicbio. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN, NPP and CSD[edit]

Hi,. I've just seen the recent thread at AN concerning a contributor who is working in NPP. I don't want to add to the drama and, yes, CSD is usually interpreted narrowly, but I wonder if you have the time to review goings-on at Kayastha Rajputs. I've now PROD'ed the thing but do we really need a separate CSD rationale for a group of people? I'm sure I've have stuff like that CSD'ed before. A caste association would definitely fall under A7 but would a community, in your opiniuon? - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously can't pronounce on the subject, because it's something I know nothing about. Knowing you, however, I'm sure you did all the searches to find if there's anything out there. IMHO, A7 applies to groups of people, and I don't think there is any doubt about that; certainly it's used for music groups, political parties, college fraternities, etc., so why not for clans and castes? Kayastha Rajputs. certainly does not make any claims to importance or significance, and it's totally unreferenced. It will almost certainly be deleted at PROD and that should be the end of the story, but if it isn't, I doubt very much if it would survive an AfD. I would also be inclined to check out the creator's other articles and/or edits too – there may be a pattern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – I thought I was going a bit doo-lally but didn't want to push the issue when PROD was available anyway. I've already checked the creator's other stuff and, alas, I think everything ended up being either reverted or PRODed. I was in a bit of a multitasking storm yesterday but I must find time to drop them a note today – all those templates and echoes will not look pretty. - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria[edit]

Hi,

As far as I understood the primary motive for starting this RFC was to ensure that the reviewers we had were competent, not to weed out possible sock-puppeting. But 74's recent section seems to indicate otherwise. Could you please clarify the same.

Also, I see that you have not given your opinion on my suggestion. Since I'm open to get as much second opinion on it as I can, could you please look into it and tell what you think of it?

Thanks and regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheOriginalSoni, you may wish to sign your post above. The RfC was about setting criteria for allowing users to review pages at AfC, nothing more, nothing less; this includes all reasons for exercising control over who may review. All discussions about implementation are clearly off topic. I have started then straw poll today. Straw poll does not need commenting, we've had the the 'think tank' discussion, which some have done their best to derail. Most of them have no idea what goes on at AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. It looks like I got an extra tilde there. Now fixed it.
In any case, it is, in my opinion, important to hash out which of the issues (Primary or secondary) was the key motive for the RFC, and (if applicable) note whether the issues are relevant for discussion too.
While I understand that implementation is something that should be kept for later discussion, we must also keep it in hindsight while we're discussing the solutions. That way, we wouldn't end up agreeing on a hard-to-implement solution. So in a sense, we need to keep it in mind even while we're not discussing it as of yet.
Also, YGM.
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No mail received yet. It sometimes take up to 6 hours for Gmail to arrive in my Gmail account. That RfC was a classic example of how many editors do not understand the principles of debating. That is the major flaw in our RfC system, but unfortunately it's the only one we have. There were no main or secondary reasons proposed for requesting a permisson to be set for reviewing AFC submissions. To require a minumum level of competency for this task should be blatantly clear. Although there were plenty of off-topic comments about implementation, none proved that technical implementation is not possible; the only evidence apepars to be that the Foundation will not entertain a solution that requires a tweak to the site software. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adendum: I have now received your email. I have nothing to add. You may however have noticed that there were plenty of borderline personal attacks at my motivation for wanting to improve AfC. I am not the only user who believes that such improvements are desperately needed, I just happen to the the user who finally started a discussion on doing something about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to post[edit]

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

Morningcrow (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request a RfA nomination[edit]

Hi, I will probably regret this in the morning, but I'd like to request a RfA nomination. Hopefully you'll be familiar with some of my work, but my areas of expertise are AfC, AfD and CSD, basic stats are 7 years experience (primarily in the last 2), 16,000 edits, 14 GAs, 400 AfDs with about 80% correctly called, over 3000 reviewed AfC submissions (including sending some to CSD), and I particularly like overturning bad CSDs and improving them to DYK (eg: The White Mandingos, Medium (service)). More recently I've started dipping my toe into unblock proposals (particularly with Bonkers the Clown). Fundamentally the reason for my increased interest in Wikipedia is due to off-Wiki people or newbies complaining about it.

I know of three admins who've explicitly asked me to give RfA a go, and I can probably think of three admins who I'd expect to vote "oppose" and whom I could probably give convincing reasons for them to do so (not necessarily reasons I personally agree with but everyone's entitled to their point of view).

The principal problem is – while I'm running into tasks I need an admin for more than I'd like, and while I think it would help the project to take some of those duties, I don't really care that much about being one. I've been an admin on various wikis and forums for years, seen all the fun and games that banned users can unleash (like DMCA requests and putting me on spam mailing lists), and I really don't fancy all that hassle again. However, I don't do the work, who will?

So, with that in mind, I don't think I'd stand unless I have a pretty good idea that it would be a runaway support with people saying "you mean he's not an admin already". I can see me getting fed up of the "open book exam" format of RfA about halfway through the week and thinking "you know what, forget it" and dropping out. I'd need a cabal of willing volunteers to drag me kicking and screaming through it and defending my work when I can't be bothered.

Advice sought. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should I take a Wiki break?[edit]

I always value your advice, both for your evident life experience and wisdom, apart from being a model administrator.

Should I refrain from editing for a period? You and others may have noted that my edit summaries have had a tendency to be pointy and overly-aggressive of late. It is concerning me too, because I really am not that kind of chap. I am having some major off-wiki problems, such as a recent bereavement (my dear old mum) and a subsequent forced home relocation, after 27 years residence, and a couple of other more minor factors. I am under massive stress put simply. I am telling you and thus the community openly, as I have nothing to hide from my colleagues. Should I cease editing for a time? Your opinion I would take as authoritative. Respect. Irondome (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not something I feel qualified to give any advice on. I think you have to weigh up for yourself what is best for your real life commitments and your voluntary engagement to Wikipedia. We all need to take a break from Wikipedia sometimes; sometimes it's thrust upon us by events in real life, sometimes by events on Wikipedia, and sometimes a bit of both. For me, Wikipedia is a part of my real life because I do a lot of off-line work for for it which gets me around, and able to meet other people concerned with its welfare. It's still voluntary though, and at the end of the day, personal, family, and professional obligations come first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Nothing I do and say on Wikipedia is 'authoritive'. Admins have discretionary toolsfor the prevention of abuse of Wikipedia, but that's generally where any 'authority' ends. However, many admins are respected for their sense of judgement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kudpung. You have answered my question fully. Sorry for the confusion in terminology above. I meant authoritative in a wider sense. In terms of judgement, and the ethics of things. Regards from Irondome (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of MassMessage, end of EdwardsBot[edit]

Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-vandalism questions[edit]

Hi! I have some questions:

  • How can you tell the difference between good faith edits and the addition of plausible misinformation (sneaky vandalism)? After all, it will look plausible, so it's not going to be obvious.
  • How can human counter-vandals specifically help, as ClueBot seems to do most of the work?

--Bradshaws1 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I admit that it is sometimes not easy to recognise subtle forms of vandalism. However there is a big distinction between vandalism and other edits. I see you once enrolled at the WP:CVUA, and I think the best way to go is to ask your trainer, because he may have addressed some of your questions already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Vertium around? --Bradshaws1 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you will see from his user history, he does not appear to have edited since 14 August. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rm bot message

User:G0DZ X L3G3NDZ[edit]

Hi Kudpung, I suggest that you remove his talk page access. Thanks. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 17:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoma Chaudhury[edit]

Can you extend protection time and lower protection level to level-one PC? --George Ho (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any pafrticular reason why? To be honest I was originally considering full page protection (admins only). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... how is levl-1 PC insufficient? You cited BLP violations for protection, so I guess autoconfirmed editors can violate BLP policy, as well? --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, full protection (admins only) for a short while seems to be the only alternative. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; PC2 is enough for now. Full-protection unnecessary, thank you. --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across this from Special:PendingChanges, (Kudpung) I'm guessing you probably know this and are IARing. But there is currently no consensus for the use of PC2 on enwiki. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also just adding this, given the continuing disruptive edits/vandalism/BLP vios from IPs it might be worth adding a semi for same time as the PC2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not IARing, but it had genuinely slipped my memory that it hasn't been approved by consensus yet. and the thing is active on the admin's control panel. If confirmed users are still disrupting tbhis page the only solution is full protection for a short while. Open to suggestions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few pages protected with PC2, not just the page Kudpung protected. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Probably worth adding a message to MediaWiki:Protect-text mentioning that, but that's for a different forum. Given that there are currently IP editors disrupting the page, I think semi protection is necessary. There don't seem to be a lot of disruptive confirmed users in the page history so I'd suggest semi protection and blocking rather than full protection. If it gets ridiculous full protection can be applied (or PC2 if it's worth IARing). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. SP 2 weeks done. Let me know if it doesn't work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Tejpal[edit]

Hi, as you are well aware because of the current intense media attention (there was a discussion here WP:BLPN#Tarun Tejpal); I wanted to know how to go about editing the related articles Tehelka, Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Chaudhury over this delicate BLP issue. What's the best way to proceed for this case?

I'm working on overhauling the Tehelka page already. So far which ever over enthusiastic IP added extra details, I reverted them citing WP:BLPCRIME. Exactly how much is too much when it comes to mentioning this? I don't have much first-hand experience on this BLP thing and since I'm already on this article, it's my responsibility to make sure this content presented in the best way possible amid all this. This incident has gained global coverage and I'm inclined to wait it out, to see what happens and then add the complete content. Please advise, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Shoma Chaudhury I am not aware of these issues at all. All I can suggest is that you continue to participate in discussions on the article talk pages. If any of the articles are edit protected, you can ask for an edit request (see: Wikipedia:Edit requests). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I thought you were aware about these articles. Anyway thanks for you time. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

It read as disruption as the nominator has created a single-word AfD, and the IP cited as a sock hasn't edited in three months so it read like a bad faith report. Apologies if I misinterpreted. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand. But as it wasn't blatant vandalism I prefer all messages to remain visible on my tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lolololololololollolol[edit]

Are you sure that it isn't vandal-only account? --George Ho (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks that way. I'll know more when the short block has expirde. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) By its username, I can just tell it is a VOA. JianhuiMobile talk 15:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes to all BLP with few or no watchers[edit]

I've drafted up an RfA at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/RfC to add Pending Changes to all BLP with few or no watchers, please feel free to sculpt it into a presentable state. Josh Parris 05:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Hi Kudpung, what would you imagine the RFA process to be like in two years? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like it is now unless someone takes the initiative to start an RfC for a change/some changes that will stick. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several thoughts. Do you reckon that someone is going to appear? Why do you give as much damn as you are at the moment, regarding the RfA process, given that it has remained largely unchanged since 2011? Why not implement several measures to lesson the workload of the existing admins? I'm looking at Wikipedia:Administrators#Places where administrators in particular can assist, and to me, the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th points involve primarily IP and inexperienced registered users (you might disagree with me on that). This is a thought that just popped into mah head, but I suppose somebody (not me) could produce a 6-minute introductory video that addresses topics such as article creation, referencing, and vandalism, topics that I think concern these users the most. Speaking generally, the video would be compulsory for all newly-registered users for their own good as well as Wikipedia's own good. The newly-registered would be placed on an open watchlist during which their first 20 edits would be monitored for vandalisms or copyright problems. If they make two or more destructive edits, they'd be blocked. If not, they'd be allowed to create new pages. My proposal is likely to not go anywhere, but it's just a thought. So my thinking is, why not lesson the workload of existing admins instead of reforming the RfA process. Thoughts? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above. But count me out. I did my bit in 2011, all I do now is offer what I hope are helpfull advice and comments at WT:RfA. Please see a recent discussion at User talk:WereSpileChaquers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote[edit]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 16:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Tag on "Alex Marshall (journalist)"?[edit]

Hello Kudpung. I wonder if you'd kindly take a look at Alex Marshall (journalist) and see if I've brought it up to standard. (You added a "needs citations" tag to the page a while ago.) If I haven't, I'd very much appreciate some guidance as to what it still needs, as it's my first article on Wikipedia. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the maintenance tags from tha article. be very careful though with articles about journalists and writers, what they have written is just part of their job and doesn't necessarily make them notable unles something they have written has won a major award.Same with lawyers – their cases will be reported in the press, but it's what they routinely do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Advice about journalists' articles noted. I think a couple of Marshall's articles on New Urbanism are notable because of the controversy they stirred up beyond the world of journalism, but in general I see your point, and will be guided by you. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fix protection template[edit]

Please fix the protection template of List of social networking websites from {{pp-semi-indef}} to something like {{pp-protected|expiry=yyyy-mm-dd|small=yes}}. Debresser (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps you could also remove {{pp-semi-indef}} from Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and fix the expiry date of the protection template on San Francisco International Airport to the 28th? Debresser (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are normally done by a bot or someone else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bot can't edit fully or templateprotected pages (it only has the bot flag because the owner isn't an admin), and editors who generally make these changes aren't admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my first request comes to fix your error: you protected the page and should have changed the protection template accordingly. The other two are just request from a non-admin to a (hopefully) nice admin. Debresser (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out why Mark Arten undid the full PP in the first place. Now the page has a pending changes template on it. Sorry, too complicated for me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The {{pp-semi-indef}} template has to be removed in any case. Even if you don't add another protection template (about the pending changes), at least you will have removed the article from the error category. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me as if the protections on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and San Francisco International Airport expire today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right: the protection will expire today. By the way, I replied to your message on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hanukkah![edit]

A happy holiday to you and yours! Kind regards from Irondome (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing issue.[edit]

I'm not sure which template we should use in this case [6] it isn't vandalism but it is a spammy sort of situation. Can you lend a hand? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have WP:Twinke installed? If not, install it and take a moment to use its dropdown to review all the many options. Otherwise, you can do it the long way and checkout the hundreds of user warnings at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've used a coi warning but they keep erasing the talk page and inserting the article. the editor doing it has self identified as Sr member of that company. I don't want to be accused of edit warring but this is ongoing including use of IPS. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put an L2 promo warning on their talk page. Let's see what happaens. Keep the article on your wl and if he continues, let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is persisting with an ip. I've also replied to your message on my talkpage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 30 Hudson Yards may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Inside Related/Oxford’s unusual financing of Hudson Yards]" in ''The Real Deal ''(August 16, 2013)]</ref><ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/officials-developers-break-ground-15b-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please assist me[edit]

I want to add Chinese Language for this Kajang wikipedia page : Kajang. Please help me to create one Chinese language page.There are already English,Malay wikipedia for Kajang.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 加影 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but tis is the English Wikipedia. We do not have Chinese pages here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)h[reply]
(talk page stalker) @加影: This is English Wikipedia and we do not accept Chinese pages. To create a Chinese page, you have to go to Chinese Wikipedia. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 14:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dies Natalis Theory[edit]

Hi Kudpung, I just noticed after CSDing the page that you had previously prodded it and the creator had removed it. Given that the same creator subsequently created this page, I'd be disinclined to give them the benefit of the doubt there. Have a look and see what you think. Valenciano (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dies_Natalis_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=583899454

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung/Archive_Nov_2013&oldid=1119460909"