User talk:Kudpung/Archive Apr 2011

RfA Taskforce
It seems we have >20 members now. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. And the last attempt 14 months ago  had nearly  200 (and barely  a familiar name among  them) -  which  of course is already  too  many  to  get  any  work sensibly  done,  and that's another reason  why  nothing got  done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right -- so, how many more do you think we need? T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I  don't  really  know. I've asked WSC for some guidance. What we don't want is for the task  force to  become another social  gathering  where all  the people only yak, and do  nothing  except be rude to  each  other. They  don't  have to  agree with  the suggestions that  have already  been made, but  we don't  want  people who  just  sit  there and say  'I don't  like it' - that's another reason  why  previous attempts failed. But  to  fast  track  this project, it  needs to  kept  on  track. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: You realise there have been over 2,000 contributors to  WT:RfA? Another interesting  thing is that  the drama seekers there are often those that cause it on RfA too. I'm going to be off line for a lot of the time over the next few days (travelling) but I'll be checking  in  at  least  once a day. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Uk Schools
When you get back join the WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom as I have set it up just starting to do the ground work. Mark999 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for voting by the community
I would like to invite you to give your opinion here. Thanks and cheers. ''' Jessy  ( talk ) ( contribs ) • 00:38, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Cort and Fatboy Show
Hi Kudpung. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/The Cort and Fatboy Show, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No Copyright InfringementLady Lewis Girls High School
The website under reference here is a Govt website belonging to the Govt of Odisha. The info provided here is not restricted or copyrighted. This info is for public consumption. Secondly if you visit the link provided and see on the top you will find "LOKA SOOCHANA" mentioned, it means that for the information of masses. Hence anything for the information of masses by Govt agency can't be a copyright infringement. Thirdly this article at its present shape may/may not confirm to the instructions for creating school articles but definitely its not a candidate of deletion under the copyright infringement category. So the article should not be deleted.--[[++@adikka 07:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

BTw: Your signature link is not working, please see Signatures for instructions how to correct this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to draw your attention to the fact that .gov websites are not owned by any personnel but Govt organisations. So no question of that info being of any kind of copyrighted material. When the Govt itself has decided to make it public and published it in a PUBLIC DOMAIN. BTW the rule G12 says that "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain....". Hence always remember .gov is only for Govt use nobody's personal domain. You should have gone into detail and asserted yourself that the links are not in Public Domain, before putting up the notice. --&#91;&#91;++@adikka (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refer again to the information on your talk page. Your claim to non-infringement of copyright should be placed on the article's talk page for the attention of the deleting administrator. Your articles about schools are extremely incomplete and they don't even provide information about  which country they  are located in. Please consider  writing  correct and complete articles to avoid them being deleted under copyright or other valid criteria. Thank you.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The page in question clearly has a copyright notice ("Copyrights © Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Orissa"), and there is no indication that the page is legally in the public domain or available under an acceptable licence. Just being on the internet is not sufficient to qualify as PD, and the policy is to err on the side of caution in any case where copyright status is not completely clear.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 19:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC).

notability etc on Downs Preparatory School
Hi, You placed a notability banner etc on Downs Preparatory School. I've added a bit to the article & tried to start a discussion on the talk page - could you contribute to the discussion. If you still feel it fails notability could you propose it at AfD?&mdash; Rod talk 19:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left a message on the article talk page where matters such as these are best discussed. There is little to be gained by sending the article to AfD where it will use valuable editor and admin resources, and risk getting the wrong consensus and be deleted - at the very worst, non notable school articles usually get merged to the article about the school district (USA), or the locality (rest of the world), leaving a redirect that can be easily turned back into a stand-alone article without a fuss if notability is later asserted and proven. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed RfC
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Time...
How much longer do you think I should wait before just moving the page in this situation? All the best, T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I don't know what precedents exist for primacy on dab or page name conventions for airports. The article is GA, I would be inclined to avert controversy and let sleeping dogs lie. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd try submitting a requested move to attract more eyes and letting people know on the main article page with a hatnote or something because it seems like the article was moved (because of a requested move) from "Midway Airport" to the current name. Otherwise, yea, I agree with Kudpung here... I don't see a problem with the current title. Airplaneman   ✈  02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cody Orick
This article seems to be a blatant violation of BLP and WP:ATTACK, and also fails our notability guideline. I'm not canvassing, but, as an admin, I feel you need to intervene.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been done already  and the author blocked. Another reason  why  it  is so  important for new page patrollers to recognise the differences between an innocuous non notable A7 and an attack  page. Attack  pages raise a special warning and will  generally  be deleted within  minutes, while pages CSD tagged for other criteria can stay online queued for deletion  for several  hours depending  on  the backlog. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Glover (radio presenter)
This page is being persistently vandalised by someone using IP 220.233.24.246 Are you in a position to fix? Silent Billy (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look  at it this time. In  future please take it to  the appropriate notice board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was such a thing I am afraid. I am happy to do that if it helps at all. Silent Billy (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have warned the user, and I have the page on  my  watchlist. If they  vandalise again  I  will  block  them immediately. This is the start page for anything  you  wish  to  report. You  can chose the appropriate noticeboard from  the list. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link and what you have done so far. Cheers Silent Billy (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have a new pal editing this page. The subject is gently complaining about the vandalism on his high rating show. Can we protect the page please? Thanks Silent Billy (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User talk:58.106.83.121 has been warned. WP:WARNING is also something you can do yourself. It usually works. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure that you are checking in on your students work for WP:USPP/C/11/PTE
Hey, just a happy reminder to make sure that you are regularly checking in on your mentees work for JMU'S Technical editing class, Sadads (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung, My name is Fabiola Lara and I am a sophomore at Syracuse University, studying International Relations and French. I am currently enrolled in the course, part of the Public Policy Initiative, Transnational NGOs in World Affairs and I would really appreciate it if you could guide and mentor me in editing the article on Primary Education as well as contribute to the Children International article. Growing up with a mother who has been an educator for 20 years, I always knew the importance of education that first started with building a strong foundation in early education. I am exceedingly passionate about the subject and am looking forward to researching and improving the article! Thank you and I will look forward to hearing from you very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falara (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Fabiola. I would very much look forward to helping you through your project. I'm still out of town with very poor Internet connections for the next day or two, but I'll get back to you as soon as I get home. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail
No mail  received.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well you've replied now, so I assume it did come through eventually. :) CT Cooper · &#32;talk 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA stats
See User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles. Let me know what you think. &mdash;SW&mdash; chatter 23:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - see your tp. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

About G. M. L. P. School, Paravannur
Wotcher,

Sorry, I was only trying to delete the redirect page. Please do the job since you are an administrator, and there isn't any relation between the redirect and the article. (Rameez pp (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

FYI
FYI All the best -- T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 02:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA standards
This is kinda task force related. I have compiled a collection of 80 standards used by people for RFA. You may be interested in them. I am going to do more statistical analysis in the suture. cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  &#124; Review Me  06:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

John Easterlin
This was not a good PROD candidate. First, the article had a reference until it was removed recently by an anon IP. The subject clearly meets wikipedia's notability guidelines(singing on a Grammy Award winning recording) and there was a reference when the article was originally created. Certainly the article is of poor quality and needs a lot of work, but finding references for this subject is not all that difficult. I would suggest taking some time to actually improve the referencing and content of the article rather than waist everyone's time with an ill thought out PROD. I am currently unable to spend much time on here, but in a few weeks I will try to get around to improve the article. In the mean time, any assistance you are willing to give on improving the article on Easterlin would be appriciated. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't  see why  I (who  am  doing  the policing) or anyone else should clean up  the mess you  left  with  all  your sockpuppetry. I  have expressed good faith  in  not  immediately  deleting  it as a creation  by  a sockpuppet, please consider doing  it yourself as part of your plea bargain. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I already said I would above. Please stop sniping at me all the time. I am getting sick of it. Your comments at User talk:Voceditenore and elsewhere have been repetedly rude. I'm doing my best to improve my contributions here, and I think my editing over the last several months has shown that. I've taken your criticisms and voceditenore's to heart and been attempting to improve my overall editing. I haven't been creating a lot of stubs with poor referencing anymore, and I've been contributing a lot to FA articles of late. It's rather disheartening to see that my efforts haven't made any headway with you, and to see such an unforgiving attitude from an admin when I've been making an effort.4meter4 (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a watchlist with over 6,000 pages on it. I am not stalking  you or your work which  does indeed appear to  have taken a turn for the better, and I'm  not sniping, but I still haven't of course forgotten the unsolicited insulting  remarks you  made in  bad faith on  my  tp  a year  ago. Let's leave it  at  that  if you  can't see your  way  clear to accepting my AGF - creations by socks can be deleted at any time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about those comments. Lets just consider it water under the bridge for now on please. In future, if you find problems with any of my previous work, please leave a friendly note on my talk page and I will try and address it as best I can. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Accepted. I've also been doing  some work on  John Easterlin for you although  opera is nowhere in  my  sphere of activity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I am currently away from home, but will be back next weekend. I will try and improve the article further when I get back.4meter4 (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Gardens Primary School

 * Thank you for your note on the above. I do respect other peoples edits as you will notice by the fact that I immediately reinstated your tag that I noticed that I had deleted in error. This school does make a claim of notability and so whilst only a primary school it may well be contested if a merge or redirect is proposed? Regards Paste  Let’s have a chat. 15:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I really appreciate your enthusiasm to clean up articles - I wish more editors were so keen to improve the mess left by others, especially SPA accounts who create school articles and never bother to read the instructions and come back. By ignoring the 'In use' tag however, you actually wasted nearly 20 minutes of my time - not to worry, things happen ;) The school however does not make any claims to notability as it turns out, unless of course it can fully comply with WP:ORG, and will shortly be redirected per WP:WPSCH/AG to Kensington & Chelsea where it is already listed. Sorry about this confusion, but I'm very quick to catch and do the right thing with all school articles, as long as the current guidelines are in force. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't want to make an issue of this but I did not 'ignore the 'In use' tag. I deleted it in error and very quickly reinstated it. I've looked at your edit history and can see no way that I 'wasted 20 minutes of your time'. Also as I say the school does make a claim to notability but I agree it is a claim that could be contested. As to WP:WPSCH/AG this is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 19:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Talk:Geethgajan Keith Gauthum
FYI, I placed the warning on the user's talk page but the user then moved his/her user page (and hence his/her talk page) to an article.-- obi2canibe talk contr 16:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the explanation. Apologies for the message :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh!
Okay..this is what bothers me. Look at Requests for adminship/RHM22. Open for less than a day, and already seven questions, and one of them from my buddy Keepscases. I'm getting just a little sick and tired of this. I'm almost ready just to remove them all..but that won't get me anywhere. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, it'll get you reverted, so that's "somewhere." I won't comment on the other questions, but I asked mine because I need to know where he intends to focus as an admin before I can decide whether to support. He seems like a decent editor, but his Wikipedia space edits are on the low side (I don't see any WP:AIV, WP:UAA or WP:RFPP activity) so it's essential I understand how he plans to use the tools, and whether he has any experience in the areas in which he intends to work. 28bytes (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What really blew me up was seeing Keepscases ask if he would ever get a Wikipedia tattoo. It never ends. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The nice thing about a Keepscases question is that if you get it wrong, few people are likely to oppose you for it. Sort of a bonus round, if you will. Yeah, I know, I'm the minority here. 28bytes (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think  Keepscases' tinkering  with  Wikipedia is utterly  distateful. Others thinks it's harmless comic relief, while others think it's a highly  intellectual experiment  in  psychology. Therefore there's  been no  consensus to  rule out this kind  of questioning - yet. Nevertheless, the wrong  answer will invariably  get  an 'oppose' and we have no  confirmation  from  the 'crats that  they  ignore these votes.
 * @Tofu, don't do  anything rash -  give it six months and see how you  answer his question ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree that Keepscases's questions are inappropriate, but in their defense, Keeps is rarely uncivil and they rarely oppose candidates, not to mention the questions are generally benign and not really stress-inducing. In my experience, at least. And they kind of offer a unique insight into the candidate's personality depending on how they're answered. I digress: Kudpung, I replied on my talk page. Regards,  Swarm  X 03:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I  suppose I'm  biased here because he left an  uncommented oppose on  my  RfA, and I naturally assumed that  it  was due to  my  complaining  about  his questions. I  hope this is not  a breach  of GF to  say  so. I  did once leave a very  friendly  message on  his tp  as a sort of olive branch, but  he did not  respond. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that was your RfA. I entirely agree that was unacceptable, and looking back, I left some angry comments regarding that myself, so maybe I'm being hypocritical. Though I vaguely remember 28bytes explaining that their !vote was a result of some previous conflict or something... I guess I mentally let it slide. Not important at this point and, regardless, the community seems somewhat divided about the questions.  Swarm  X 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there was no actual conflict - he rarely addresses any comments on his tp - I  was just  one of a great  many  who  politely  suggested that  his RfA questions may  be inappropriate (some people were not  so  polite). My own  RfA  came up  shortly  after and was borderline right  up  until  the last 36 hours or so, and if it had been, we would not  know how the 'crat would have counted such a vote. Another reason  perhaps for suggesting  that  'crats should always provide a closure summary in  which  they also detail which votes, if any, were discounted. This is within the remit  of our RfA  reforms. Ironically  of course, there were a lot of support votes from  people I have never heard of - I didn't know that I had such  a fan club ;) I haven't finished  analysing all the 135 votes yet against Snottywong's table. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. This is what I was thinking about; apparently you were "very vocal" about the "silly questions". That wouldn't have been a reasonable excuse, particularly if it was a borderline case. Oh, while I'm here, I went ahead and moved the coordinator list onto the task force page. Three should be all we need so no harm if that's it, though one more certainly wouldn't hurt. Regards,  Swarm  X 05:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good thread. If being very  vocal means the multiplicity  of Keep's Qs on  my  silly-Q list, well  that's the way  the cookie crumbles.  I was hell  bent  on  RfA reform long before I  had any  intention of being  an admin  myself and the silly-Q list  was made long  before I  decided/agreed to  run.  I  was firm  in  the opinion that  people should judge me on  anything  and everything I  have done on  Wikipedia and hence did not  remove anything controversial as some do. On  a slightly  more humorous note, maybe Keeps was disappointed that  I  have no political, religious, or sexual orientation uboxen. There was also  a silly  oppose for leaving  barnstars on  my tp (whose attitude and sarcasm in  many  places gives me pause) although my  response to  the question  unabiguously stated that  I  set no  store by  them. My  RfA was strangely  unique in  many  ways - did you  notice that  there were absolutely no tech or trick Qs? It  also  raises the point  about  an opposer who  caused a pile-on, where the pile-ons later retracted their oppose, but  the original  opposer, (whose oppose was based on  material taken entirely out  of context) did not. There was also  a question  by  a POV pusher who  insists that editors should only  write articles about  the country  they  live in. I never intended my  RfA  to  be an experiment, and I  was  badgered and convinced to  run by highly  experienced noms who  were sure that  I would pass 'with  flying  colors' (sic). It's a good RfA (that passed) to  cite as an example of what's wrong  with  the system. It's not  only  the failed ones that  demonstrate the problems with  the process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points. And looking back, some of those questions and the !votes based on them are physically stress-inducing to me. My god, "you live in Thailand but don't write about Thailand"? "Oppose per your TL;DR response to my inane question about barnstars"? Reading these things are stress-inducing. You're right, your RfA is a gleaming example of what's wrong, despite passing. It's amazing that some people took you seriously when you said you hadn't been given enough barnstars. I distinctly remember in one unbelievably harsh RfA from over a year ago, a user said "Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits" and out came the arrogance and immaturity accusations (at the end of the day the user left permanently). People really go into RfAs with the worst possible mindset.

It's funny, RHM22 is an editor with less than 4000 edits and virtually nothing outside of (very respectable) content work to judge their competency as an admin, yet they're running a 68% 69% (and rising) in their RfA. This seems relatively common; users with a passable but pretty low edit count and a decent history, even with numerous mistakes, will get quiet a generous number of support (nothing fundamentally wrong with this alone). Conversely, many fully qualified, highly experienced editors can see their RfA turn into an absolute bloodbath because of a few mistakes. I a quote of mine back from February sums it up: "In weaker candidates, many of us often look for a "net positive" and will support if we see one. I don't see the point of looking for one minor issue and opposing based on that for stellar candidates." It's a bizarre pattern; something I myself am "guilty" of. Your RfA was an example of this, you're completely qualified and very highly experienced, but a couple of out of context diffs paired with some flat-out ridiculous !voters caused a pile on that could have derailed your RfA-- and you were nominated by two sysops. It also proves that no RfA is safe from these problems. And, granted, I suppose I'm as guilty as any of the other opposers, but my justification is simply that I didn't conduct research myself or form a strong opinion either way; I just skimmed through and casually left a poorly reasoned pile on !vote. Anyway, I know I'm preaching to the choir and I'm probably getting TLDR as well (sorry). Regards,  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 08:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rest assured that discussions of this kind  are certainly  not  TLDR, and I  have a great  respect  for the way  you  retracted your oppose on  my  RfA - that  kind of thing takes a lot of courage. That's one of the reasons I  invited you  along, and probably why you've chosen to  be a major help on this project. This does not  mean of course that  you and I are expected to  !vote the same way on other RfAs,  far  from it :) What  Lambanog didn't  check out, although I  mentioned it  in  my  rebuttal, was that  I  have contributed massively  to  several Thailand articles. I  wrote Education in Thailand entirely  myself except  for the four  line stub that  it was, just  for example. (I  used to  be a senior administrator of a group  of over 40 large independent  schools in  the country). I  know it's poorly  sourced, but there is light consensus for this kind of 'non-original' original research where sources are extremely  difficult to find - but  don't  tell  everyone ;). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't thank you enough for inviting me to the project as well as just getting the whole thing off the ground. Though I haven't partaken in any reform efforts previously, I've always felt strongly about these issues and it feels great to work for a real solution.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Createangelos tentative RFA
Hi, Thx for the message on my talk page, "...Then see the successful RfA of a broadly experienced editor with a high edit count, that could have...."

I see that I fail also on the condition not to have tags on my articles. The articles I've started still have permanent 'need to be wikified' tags, and I don't know why or how to get rid of them. If that's the task of an admin to understand, I admit not being there yet.

I liked reading the justification for keeping barnstars on the talk page, and the philosophy of not always caring about honours otherwise. Note that 'discreet' is misspelled. In the list of conditions an admin should satisfy, there is an un-matching right parenthesis. I also liked reading about wanting to defend Wikipedia from manipulative practises; when you mentioned giving short shrift to arguments when people disagree, it left me wondering whether it has ever happened that people have seemed to be arguing against you but actually just clueless? In that case just referring them to the relevant links or documentation wouldn't be enough.....maybe sometimes people seem to be attacking when really they are looking for info or guidance, I wonder. Though on the other hand I actually said in my long reply to Eagle that what makes Wikipedia important is exactly that it is not a chat forum; maybe you're talking about how you deal with people who just view it as a chat forum. In that spirit, I won't go on at length here too, but just to say I'll leave my started admin application on my page mainly to look at again, but I will not transclude it. Createangelos (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you  found the pages useful - do feel  free to  make any  corrections to  typos to  anything I write (I  get  my  languages mixed up  sometimes), and don't  hesitate to join in the discussions on the attached talk  pages. My  RfA criteria are quite strict, and I  wouldn't  have accepted the nomination  if I  hadn't  met  them myself, but  it's worth  reading  the other user essays on  their criteria too. When I  give 'short schrift'  is when someone argues cluelessly against a blatantly  clear and unambiguous policy; WP:AfD is a classic venue for that  sort of thing. There is nothing  that says we can't  chat  about  other things on  our talk  pages (see my  essay: Don't lose the thread), even people working  in the same office will exchange comments about  last night's football  results. There are however people who  register to use it just as a forum, or to  exchange unearned barnstars with  each  other. I've seen comments from  youngsters such as 'Great forum, this!', while others just make pretty user pages 'I only  made it  show my friends at grade school,  I'm  not  interested in  editing  anything.' I don't  believe in  editcountitis, but  if you  want  to  bump  up  your edit  count quickly, I  do  suggest a thorough  read of WP:NPP and doing  some patrolling - every  tag, stub tag, or cat you  add, and every other minor improvement to  a page such  as moving  an incorrectly  spelt page name, and making  appropriate redirects will add to  your score. It  will  also  greatly deepen and broaden your editing  skills and knowledge of policy. I  see the 'need to be wikified' tags very  often on  the shortest  stubs where there is nothing to  be Wikified. Give me some links to the pages and I'll look  into  them for you. BTW: Untranscluded RfAs will get deleted sooner or later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform
Hi SilkTork. I've not seen you comment here yet. It might not be your specific area of interest, but I feel you would have a lot to offer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take a closer look when I get some time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
(Barnstar moved to  another page) Well thank you for that BW,  it's most  appreciated. It goes to  prove that  when advice is offered in  a kind and encouraging way, people will take time to  improve the Wkipedia in  better ways - and don't  forget, we're always open to  suggestions on  how we can improve things (RfA is the next item  we're working on). You can help more! Now that you  are an expert NPPer, you  can pass on  the same advice to others, and if you  still need any  help with anything else, you  know whose door you  can come knocking  on :)  keep  up  the good work! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that! Baseball   Watcher  03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
...for changing that title. It's because of things like that and this that I haven't wanted anything to do with the RFA reform project. But if I can be confident that the good faith motives of myself and others won't be called into question merely because we have different approaches to how RfA should look I would be happy to chip in. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone had to get  the ball rolling  on  RfA reform. Although that  someone happened to  be me, I'm  an admin already  and have nothing  personal  to  gain  by  this reform. I  don't  own  the project  and never intended to, or even to be it's leader. That's why  we have a task  force and coordinators. Because I  used a lot of my  own research  and experience to  give some start-up body to  the project  pages, there is a firm, open, and very  clear request  for anyone to  improve things as long  as they  are towards a single goal: RfA reform. That anyone includes you. Be  bold and make changes yourself. Our main  concerns are that  the task  force members can cooperate civily together, even if they  don't  agree on everything, and that  the project  stays focused and on  track. I'm sure the community  would be pleased to  have the input  and support of an editor with your particular experience. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not overly keen on "RFA reform" as I don't accept the premise that there's anything wrong. No-one's ever convinced me of that. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"IntoUniversity" Article
Hi Kudpung,

How can I improve the IntoUniversity article in order to show that it is notable enough for wikipedia?

Thanks!

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebkac (talk • contribs) 11:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi James. I  have started a community  debate on  this article at Articles for deletion/IntoUniversity. You  would need to  find significant  coverage per WP:ORG to  assert notability, and provide in-depth reliable sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung, OK thats good. I am also curretnly looking around the internet & press to see where else they have been mentioned, so will make the article much better over the next hour. Thank you for your patience & help! Pebkac (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do be sure to  check  out what  we mean by  WP:RS (reliable sources) at  Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK I'll be sure to follow that, thank you for your help :) Pebkac (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung, I think it looks like a consensus to keep the "IntoUniversity" article has been reached, would it be possible for us to remove the deletion notice please? Thanks! Pebkac (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus will be evaluated by  a non involved admin on the full  elapse of 7 days. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK that's great, thanks for your help Kudpung! Pebkac (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Trick
In the context of "the questions they ask", does trick mean "trick question" (as in a question with a hidden purpose) or simply "trick" (as in a prank or attempt to deceive)?  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just this very  moment  been looking  at  that  thread again. I've clearly  expressed in the project  and in the 'Thankyou' thread above, that  some of the material  used to  get  the project  started was my own, and may  well  be subjective, and anyone -  with  good reason - can change what  they  like. That  is the case with the selection  of questions I  made months ago before I even dreamed of becoming  an admin myself, or being  the one to  start a project  on  reform. The use of the word trick may  have been an unfortunate lexical choice for some, and my  personal  view is that  it  could be considered also  bad faith  to  to  criticise what  has obviously  been done in  the very  best of good faith, viz, improving  the RfA system for which there is overwhelming  opinion  that  the process needs reform. Accusing  for bad faith  when obviously  none is intended, is also naturally bad faith; 'bad faith'  and 'good faith' are often used as straw man  arguments in  Wikipedia discussions.  The Oxford American Dictionary  gives us among  many  other definitions: Trick: noun - 1. a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone : he's a double-dealer capable of any mean trick. I  don't  think  for a moment  that  people will  believe that is what  I  meant. A better interpretation  would have been (also  from  OAD): tricky: - adjective ( trickier, trickiest ) (of a task, problem, or situation) requiring care and skill because difficult or awkward : applying eyeliner can be a tricky business | some things are very tricky to explain, (Ironically,  before I  retired I  was a lexicographer on  one the world's best known brands of dictionaries -  not  the AED, though, which  comes bundled with  the Mac OS). FWIW, there are other 'tricky'  questions in the list, but  to  avoid duplication, they  appear in other sections.  Mkativerata has has clearly  expressed that  they do not  consider there is any  need for RfA  reform, and in  deference to  their comment, I  have changed the title of the question section,  and I  will  shortly  be archiving (not  striking  or deleting) that  thread as one that  does not  move us along. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll just say that I think the root of the disagreement between Mkativerata and myself is that I have no idea what the hell Mkativerata's perceived problem is. They're trying to argue something, but for the life of me I can't decipher what the point is.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 05:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not  sure that  Mk's disagreement  is especially  with  you. He passed for sysop with an absolutely brilliant  RfA, somehow got  disillusioned with  adminship, and handed the tools back a few months later. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A concern
In the proposal it clearly states the proposal is not about "Desysoping" amongst other things. Many comments are gaining momentum suggesting that one is unachievable without the other being integral. I am concerned because this is a major consideration which has the potential to undermine success. What are your thoughts regarding these developments? Do you think we can do one without the other? Do you think we could do both? My76Strat (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a system  for desysoping, and according  to the research  made by User:WereSpielChequers,  whose  opinions on  RfA matters I  hold with  the highest  respect and greatest  esteem, these methods appear to  effective. Nevertheless, there are indeed admins who, IMO, while they might  not  actually  abuse the use of the tools, their other actions and comments may  seem  to  suggest  that  their mindset is not  wholly  appropriate to  the way  I  feel  that  admins should be a role model and lead by  example. However, I see very  little potential  for removing  admin  rights from  sysops who  abuse their 'power', and who  intimidate other users. There are several reasons why I  feel  that  desyoping  should not  be part of the remit  of this project (as shown already  in  the aggregate of my  comments on the project's various talk  pages): Thank you for your concerns, and rest  assured that  I/we  really  value and appreciate your input in  particular (my own  RfA was also  a particularly  nasty  experience). I hope all this answers your question. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither !voters nor candidates appear particularly  worried about  length of tenure, hence it's apparently not one of  the main reasons why  good editors are staying away  from  running  for office. Any  comments to  the contrary  appear to  come from  users who  do  not  generally  take part  in RfAs or in  discussions about  its process. We  have a lot  of on-  and off-Wiki  explanations from  qualified possible candidates as to  why  they  won't  run, and this does not  seem to  one of them. The main  reason  for declining is that  they  don't  want  to  be subjected to  the bloodbath. In  it's present  form, RfA is very  much  a lottery  based on  the turnout, and it  it is  unfair to  subject  them to  unreasoned or unreasonable !voting that may  and can sufficiently  discourage even the best  editors from  continuing  to work  at  Wikipedia.
 * Candidates can opt for the voluntary admin  recall  system.
 * Many admins, some with  overwhelming  support at  their RfA, have reaslised their  inadequacies for the task and have relinquished the tools voluntarily,  others just  get  fed up with  it  and hand the tools back. (this, for example, would probably  be the route I  would personally take).
 * Desyoping has been a major topic of perennial  discussion  that  never reached  consensus stage.
 * To include desyoping  in  this project  would overburden the work  of the task  force. The current project  addresses a two-stage process for bringing  about  reform: a compact  task  force that  can work  without  background noise to  formulate some concrete proposals, then offer those proposals to  the broader community -  which  will then of necessity  incur a round traditional, interminable discussions.
 * Our goals are a clean up of the current  process itself i.e., irrelevant  questions, irrelevant  and/or improper !votes, off-topic discussions, maturity  of participation, civility  issues, and preventing  too many  AfD from  candidates who  are clearly  not  ready  for adminship. I  think strong rationale from the  task  force participation can achieve this.
 * There may be discussion  in  other places that  we are not  privy to, about  radical  reforms of the process, such  as for example secret ballot judged by  a panel  of bureaucrats, Arbcoms, or the WMF, etc. This may  well  come suddenly  as an edict  from on  high, and if it  does, we'll  just  have to accept  it, but it's not  a reason  to  give up now.
 * Finally, since moving this project  away  from  my  own  user space, this is no  longer a personal initiative, and it is 'owned'  by  the community. I  would nevertheless recuse from active participation in this project  if it  becomes a discussion  about  adminship  in  general,  and hope  that  other coordinators and task  force members would continue to  keep  the focus on the essentials and the good work.
 * Thank you very much for that well thought response. I agree with the points you have highlighted. I am not as experienced as you with moving these kinds of proposals through the system and yield greatly to you expertise. I am only curious if the suggestions to incorporate the two separate issues should be rebutted as the come in, or is it best to simply read the comment knowing it is a bit inappropriate having been stated as not part of this proposal, and otherwise let it go? My76Strat (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My only experience comes from 20 years as a project consultant and college administrator. Wikipedia is a totally different  kettle of fish, and I'm  learning  all  the time. The strength of the task force is essential for  keeping  comments on  track, and demands a lot  of comittment  to  the project. No  one should hesitate for a moment, in the politest  form of course, to  point  out  to  a user, even to another task force member, if commenting  gets out  of focus. Cleaning  up  RfA  starts here on  our own project! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Strat's concerns are valid and I agree with kp that we should stay completely on topic, before we get a subgroup who want to seriously start working on desysopping and other types of administration reform as part of RfA reform. I completely agree that it needs to be addressed sometime and somehow, but this project is not the place.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 05:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My own  early  experience with  admins was very negative and was the very  reason why  I  became interested in  the RfA process - long  before I had the slightest  inkling  of being an admin  myself. On  my  candidacy, I  never gave a second thought  to  how long  I  would last  in  office. To  be quite truthful, I  probably  said I  would go  for ARC because the !voters appear to  like it,  and anyway, I think  it's a good system, although I  don't  actually  know without  researching, how often it's been applied and what  the outcomes were. I did taken part in  a voluntary re-sysoping (User:Nev1 - a great  admin, BTW) of one who had voluntarily  handed the tools back. However, I'm  firm  about  not  wanting to  take part in  any  discussions about  adminship  in  general  on  the reform project,  for the reasons stated above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

London Undead
Hi,

I am the bands manager for London Undead and I would like to write and article about my band on Wikipedia. Everytime I try to make one it keeps on getting deleted. I do not make bias comments in the article and I do have permition to write this article. Can you help me make this article without it being deleted please?

Regards

London Undead Band manager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 9599 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied on your talk page HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled
Hi Kudpung,

I've decided to grant User:Doc9871 the right as although he doesn't meet the 50 article guideline, he is an editor in good standing, I have had good interactions with him in the past and trust him.

I hope you don't mind this action.

Thanks,

The Helpful  One  23:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * His contempt for administrator  decisions does not  demonstrate that  he can be trusted with  anything. Probably  best  if we let  Arbcom  decide just  how much the rules can be bent. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think going to Arbcom would be quite unnecessary over this, seriously. What I should have done in the first place was to ask an admin for the priv instead of going to a board where a random admin could decide on it. That's what I did for a potentially far more trustworthy priv like Rollback. I figured that since File mover was granted on the board, there'd be no issue with giving me the priv. Thehelpfulone did nothing wrong, and neither did you for denying it, Kudpung. However, I am a quite trusted user, and that is no accident. Cheers... Doc   talk  05:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am  more concerned with  the unilateral  reversion  of an administrator's decision of a due process, than with  your requesting  a tool  for which  you  don't even nearly  meet  the basic requirement. I had thoroughly  reviewed your editing  history before making my  decision. Arbcom  will decide which  admin  was out  of order. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, I made the mistake of not going directly to an admin instead of that board. You never would have seen the request nor had the opportunity to decide whether or not I had "open contempt" for admin processes. It would be very sad and unfortunate if you chose to call Thehelpfulone's conduct into question at Arbcom, and I know a couple of arbitrators that would probably have granted me the right had I gone directly to them. Don't blame him: blame me for not going direct to the source. Trustworthiness is demonstrated and earned, and I know a few autopatrollers who have never even created a single article, yet have the priv. Do what you must, but be prepared. Cheers... Doc   talk  06:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't  appear to  have understood. The issue is with  one administrator overriding  another without  polite discussion. That's what Arbcom  will  decide. If Wikipedia was managed the way  you  would like it  to  be, there wouldn't  be a serious Wikipedia project  anymore, and there would be no need for admins, bureaucrats or Arbcom. NPP 'priviliges are not  part of the discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. I hope you have a slew a diffs to back up your allegations of the general contempt of process you accuse me of. You are picking a losing fight here, I must say. Your best bet is to stick with the "50 article" guideline instead of the "I don't like that he didn't accept my word as law". Good luck... Doc   talk  06:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "I know a few autopatrollers who have never even created a single article..." Who? Can you name one? I ask out of curiosity. On another note, perhaps thehelpfulone is a fan of Grace Hopper.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 09:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can surely name one... but I won't embarrass them by mentioning them here. See, back in the day, autopatrolled privs were handed out like candy to users that could be trusted. It's infinitely harder to become an admin nowadays, I should note. Which is why I'll continue to behave like an admin when it comes to many issues, yet very likely NEVER submit to the joke that RfA has become. 14 year-old video game/TV show episode article creators are the gauntlet I would face? Meh. I can think of a few others cut from the same cloth that I am as well, but I won't embarrass them by mentioning them either. Cheers... Doc   talk  10:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Back in the day', adminship  was handed out like candy. And I  have first-hand evidence of how some of them  still  behave today. 14 year-old video game/TV show episode article creators are the gauntlet I would face?  Very true - not to mention the ones who  run  for office and sometimes  even got  the bit - that's why  a dedicated team  is trying  this very  moment  to  that  all changed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt you'll see me there ;> Running for adminship, that is. Everyone that's ever disagreed with me or thought me "snarky" would try to shoot me to pieces (not to mention pile-on votes: simply "Oppose per Such-and-Such"), and I'd have to be all "nice" and not respond. And I've met quite a few of the admins that got the bit too early back in the good old days. Sometimes they are dragged out kicking and screaming, but for the most part they know when to use their tools and when not to. Kind of like me ;> Doc   talk  10:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that my action would cause such a debate. Kudpung, please accept my sincerest apologies, I know of admins who are happy if you revert their decision so long as you inform them accordingly. In hindsight, it would have been better to discuss this with you and I admit that I made that mistake. I hope you accept my apology and no longer feel the need to escalate this matter to ArbCom, but that is ultimately your decision. Kind Regards, The  Helpful  One  11:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replying on  your tp.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, at least that's over! :) Congratulations on your adminship by the way, welcome to the cabal, you've certainly taken your first admin dispute well! If you're ever unsure or need a second opinion on something, please feel free to ask on my talk page or by sending me an email. Hope this helps, The  Helpful  One  11:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Protestantism in England
I created the page because the Protestantism in Europe box is just one mass of red links. If you can find a better way round it please feel free...andycjp (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The page is not a proper redirect. The only  workaround is for me to  delete it  as an uncontroversial  housekeeping  task. There's nothing  to  stop  you  making  proper redirects if you  wish,  but  they  must  not  contain  any  other information.  We'll  just  have to  live with  the redlinked nav box until  someone turns the links into  articles. See WP:REDIRECT  for instructions and if you  get  stuck  ask  me again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Redirected to English Reformation. andycjp (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks"> Armbrust has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

copyright granted.
Hello,

You just deleted an article titled Chris Harrison (artist),Permission from solicitor, publicist and all other parties have been approved.

Kind Regards. D.H Campbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOTHERname81 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm sorry, but  there has never been a page in  Wikipedia with  such  a title. We twice deleted one with  the name Chris harrison (click  the red link to  see the deletion  log and the reason  for deletion). I'm  afraid we can't accept  material  copied from  other websites or articles you  write about  yourself  or your company. Please see the messages on  your talk  page at  User talk:ANOTHERname81. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User pages
Hi Kudpung,

Thanks for the message. I marked that page in error, thinking it was in mainspace. I usually wouldn't tag user pages for deletion in this way.

Regards, <FONT COLOR="#006633">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#339966">&#38; the soapdish</FONT>  08:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I have replied to your message on my talk page. As explained there, problems not of my making prevented me from replying earlier. I have no such excuse for not joining in at you RfA reform project. When you first told me about it I thought I didn't have time, and would do it in a couple of days or so, and then it got left. Maybe I will comment there soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now written an answer to your further comment about Ateeq Hussain Khan Bandanawazi. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Where has It gone now ........?
Where did the actual Task Force list get to? I just want to be able to click those links, lol! Pesky ( talk ) 09:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At WP:RFA2011, but Swarm has transcluded it  to  most  of the sub pages too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful RfAs
Hi Kudpung. Since Worm agreed to the page move between User:Worm That Turned/Unsuccessful RFAs and RfA reform 2011/Unsuccessful RfAs on his talk page, I've gone ahead and done the move. Regards, &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 09:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. I hadn't  seen his reply  yet, having  some intermittent  connection  problems. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wallpost
Hi Kudpung. Just now i create a wiki page [] but this page has been deleted. Can you please tell me why this page was deleted? If any mistakes please tell me i will correct it. Thank You, Bangar Reddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abreddy1 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Abreddy1. please read the big  pink message on  the Wallpost page, and the messages on your talk page. Everything  is explained for you. I'm  very  sorry, but  I  don't  think your  page will  be allowed to  stay  in  Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, would salting the title help? I see it has been re-created two times now.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 14:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought  I  had salted both  of them Wallpost and WALLPOST already. Let  me check, I've had some bad internet  connections this evening, and the Wiki  server has been slow,  so  I'm  not  sure if the button  pressing action  went  through. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it worked on  both about  two  hours ago. Only  for a week this time though. That  should give the creator enough  to  give up on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Abreddy1, at the time that editor posted the above message here, the latest message on their talk page said "A tag has been placed on Wallpost, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page", and signed by you, so it was reasonable for them to ask the question. I have actually stopped putting db-multiple warnings on user talk pages because I find that message unhelpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realised that  myself afterwards, and I  will  bear it  in  mind for the future. The article would never have stood a chance, but Abreddy kept  recreating  instead of pressing  the hang-on  button. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

help
I would really appreciate your help in dealing with the vandals on the page I created. I'm sorry if you thought I was not following rules by deleting some comments but you have to understand that these vandals are absolutely in the wrong and are bullies. I would rather you delete the entire page than to have these people get to post any of their negative comments on this page. (Riotgirrl1 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC))


 * I have warned the other editor to cease the 3-revert-rule infraction, and you must do the same. It is serious offense and you will both end up being blocked for disruptive editing whoever is in the wrong. I'm looking into it now to get to the bottom of all this. Once articles have been created, we don't delete them until we have thoroughly examined the references to see if they can be kept. Please now be patient while I look into all this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Louise Carey talk page dispute
In looking over that talk page comment at Talk:Louise Carey a third and fourth time, the comment does appear to be nothing but an attempt to slander Ms. Carey. There are two external links provided, one to a sales site that proves nothing, and the other a dead link to Twitpic. The comment does raise a legitimate concern that the article is written by the subject, but with very weak, almost non-existent evidence for the other allegations, I think this should qualify as a legitimate removal of talk page content under WP:TPO, specifically that it is libel. If you are amenable, I would like to remove it and replace it with a comment like "Comment removed as libel per WP:TPO. Legitimate concerns regarding COI remain." &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried to AGF on this for a long time, but I'm as sure as anyone that there is a strong COI here. I didn't think the comment was particularly libellous, but now the article creator has hopefully understood that 3rr is not the way to go, you can remove the message, but just use something like 'Rm inappropriate comment' as your edit summary - don't mention libel, it might be Heinz. In the meantime, Ill sort the COI and other stuff out - I may have to protect the page from both of them and AfD it. We'll see. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Article: Advanced International Translations
Dear Kudpung, the Advanced International Translations article now scores 7 references from the 3d party sources (the independent media in translation industry), as you may see yourself, so would it be ok if you removed the notability tag? Thank you and have a nice day! Best wishes, Olga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguaua (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the references are not independent, or not reliable sources, or don't give substantial coverage. The best, in my opinion, is http://www.amicus-transtec.com/en-gb/Translation_Software/J_Zetzsche_ToolKit_Reccomended/Translators_tool_kit_reccomended_software.html. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid James is quite right. I'm not saying that it's not a notable compny, bu we do not have sufficient proof that it is. Such  proof will  come from from in  depth  coverage in  articles in  print  media, and important  awards that  the company  has won etc. In  the sources provided, I  fail  to  see any relevant  connection other than translation  tools in  general. After checking through the references and looking for others, I found unfortunately that it mat even be necessary to decline this article for the Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Could I please have some more of your time to revise?

I see your point of view and respect your following the rules. But as far as I understand, Wikipedia is open for the companies notable in a specific industry. AIT is notable in translation indusrty. I'm sure you know that translation industry is very Internet-centered nowadays and mostly doesn't provide printed media. Still, it relies on the points of view of specific industry media.

There may be an argue on whether the translation industry itself may be notable enough for Wikipedia, but as it is decided that it is according to the number of articles related (such as in Categories "Translation software" and "Translation companies"), I think it is fair to rely upon the respected sources in translation industry.

The references provided for AIT are from the most respected translation industry sources, such as Multilingual, Translation Journal and Global Watchtower and most reviews are written by 3d-party experts. Indeed, the most important reference, as your colleague has noted, is the Toolkit Recommended translation software list. Two of AIT products were named among the 13 most useful tools for translators in opinion of a leading translation industry expert (and then reprinted by another reliable 3d party source). And AIT's Projetex was named in Global Watchtower translation management tools classification. This may appear not important in comparison with New York Times coverage, but I'm afraid there aren't any translation industry players that can make such coverage (and many of those who are on Wikipedia live don't have 3d party references at all). So wouldn't it be just to give them the equal treatment at Wikipedia?

Thank you for your time.

Linguaua (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC about the clerks idea
Kudpung, I have requested comment into whether the clerks idea should be initiated immediately. <font face="times new roman"> maucho eagle   00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn and I am looking for ways in which I can get more members into the task force. I think at least 50 members would coax JWales into letting us have our way. <font face="times new roman"> maucho eagle   01:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need Jimbo's approval. Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia is not an monarchy. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 01:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, I thought it couldn't be done without his approval. <font face="times new roman"> maucho eagle   01:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although his opinions and advice are highly valued, The Wikipedia does not need JW's approval for anything, the Wikipedia is run by  consensus of the community. If you  have any  proof that  JW has voiced an opinion  against  this project, please do  not hesitate to  let the task  for know about  it. The task  force is already  composed of some senior members of the community  including  bureaucrats. The task  force certainly  does not  need 50  members - a quick review of the project's principles and objectives will  clearly  explain  that  the task is supposed to be a group of experienced and  active members, not  simply  a list  of people who  wish  to  vote on  its ideas. Indeed, there may  even be reason to approach some task force members at  this stage to ask them to clearly  define their participation. Too  many task  force members will stifle the work and will turn  the work  into  another traditional fiasco that  WT:RfA is, and which most RfC always become.  We'll  have that  soon  enough  when we launch  the finalised proposals properly  at  RfC level. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation
Wow. I was actually dropping by to suggest something similar to what you said directly above. What do you think about requesting that inactive task force members reconfirm their membership? We just boot anyone who doesn't do so. I'd be happy to handle the whole thing, it would filter out those who aren't doing anything and/or don't intend to do anything. WP:Wikiproject Wikify did this a short while back and I'm sure they didn't invent the idea.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 05:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion: let's give them something to do. Perhaps we can ask each editor who has signed up to suggest which two or three ideas/proposals they would most like to see move forward, with their reasoning. 28bytes (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * :RfA reform is a finite project which will  close down when it  either reaches its goals, or hopelessly  flounders. Most  traditional  WP projects are on-going and have both  a membership and a task force, but  they generally  do  not  focus on  controversial items of policy that  attract  a lot of background noise. The whole concept of RFA reform 2011 is to  move ahead with  as little disruption  as possible until  the times comes to  make some firm proposals to  the broader community. I'm  reluctant  to  suggest  removing  editors from  the task force, but  clearly  some of them may  not  have the time or required experience they  thought  they  had to  take part actively and objectively. I think  your suggestion  is excellent and I'm  quite happy  to  leave it up to you and your discretion. However, Pesky  has recently  sent  out  a gentle nudge to  all  members, and we don't  want  to  be seen as task masters. If you  go ahead, choose carefully, review their participation  to  date, and their experience at  Wikipedia. Some of them might  not  have as much time to  devote as others, but  they  are people with  whom I  personally  have excellent  collaboration  even if we sometimes don't  always share the same opinions,  and they  are highly  qualified - when they  do  say  something, it  hits home. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with 28bytes, Instead of booting them out of the force, Give them something to do. <font face="times new roman"> maucho  eagle   06:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @28bytes and MauchoEagle -- Signing your name to something is not necessarily the same as being seriously committed. I do think 28's idea is is worth consideration, but we should filter out those whose hearts aren't in it first. I'm not talking about booting everyone who hasn't been hyperactive in the project. I'm just suggesting that we politely ask our inactive members to confirm that they really are interested in taking part in this initiative. I would be surprised if every single member confirmed- I've signed up for things that I never got involved in myself.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also a very  good suggestion  28. Perhaps split  the active ones off into  small  groups of 3 or 4 based on  which  sections of the project they appear to have been most  active on. Giving  them something  to  do  will  give them a greater sense of involvement, especially  the younger and enthusiastic ones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that if we're going to ask people a question anyway, asking "which proposals sound good to you?" will give the task force more useful data and will engage the editors better than "are you still interested?" would. If they're still interested, great! But even better would be to know what folks are willing to push for (or at least support) so we can weed out the proposals and ideas that no one is particularly enthusiastic about, and put our focus on the proposals and ideas that have broader support. 28bytes (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, that is what I am talking about 28. <font face="times new roman"> maucho eagle   07:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We want an active and efficient task force. The task force is it. Rather than continuing to "nudge" and "ask for opinions" and "encourage contribution" with users who don't intend to contribute a damn thing, we should gently filter out the dead parts of the list to ensure that this effort comprises motivated, active users. We have multiple users who have not contributed anything whatsoever to the project since signing up. We've already sent out "nudges," many of which have been completely ignored. Asking some of the members if they plan on doing anything to contribute to this project isn't going to have a negative effect. The opinions of all are welcome- even Keepscases is a member :P. However, those who don't intend to do anything shouldn't bother signing up in the first place. It's a task force for crying out loud!  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 07:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misinterpreted your suggestion re "requesting that inactive task force members reconfirm their membership"? I inferred you were planning to reach out to all those who'd signed up, active or not. My point was that if we're going to reach out, we ought to try to get some addition useful information from everyone while we're at it. Just getting an "oh yeah, I'm still interested" from folks isn't all that helpful on its own, IMO. 28bytes (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just asking  them to  reconfirm will  probably  just  get  a 'Yes' from  them all. I've tried to AGF and  avoid mentioning  Keeps till now, but  now it's been brought  up  I  can't  deny  a niggling  doubt. He doesn't  like me, he's certainly  not  in  favour of any  reform or moderation  of the RfA 'Question Time', and  it raises the matter of what  he would support. In  the meantime I've updated the text  in  the page and section  banners on  the main  page at  WP:RFA2011. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we may have misinterpreted each other, actually. I was under the impression that you thought an "outreach" effort would be ideal instead of a 'reconfirmation request'. I apologize if I was mistaken. To be clear, I would not ask everyone to reconfirm, I would evaluate the member list and request it of only those who are completely inactive. So, just for the sake of being on the same page, how would you feel about your idea running parallel/being part of the confirmation thing? If you guys don't think the confirmation idea is necessary at all, I'll defer to your judgment but I think it's a reasonable idea.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 08:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My recommendation was for what to request from the people you contact; I will defer to you and Kudpung as to whom to contact. 28bytes (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, thanks.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has misinterpreted anyone, the suggestions here are all very good, it's just hat  the mesages re out of sinc due to the edit conflicts. What I have understood is: Careful selection of whom to ask to reconfirm - so for example you could leave people like us and WSC and Useight of it. Tofu is young and keen and has an excellent grasp of how things work, but he's tied up in RL for a moment but he will be back. I wouldn't badger the admins and crats, but possibly concentrate on newbs, and people whose edit histories, talk pages, block logs and SNOWed RfAs might reveal recent activity that needs more experience to take part in a project like this. When you see what's left, go ahead with the suggestions of giving them some work to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like many of the ideas proposed here. I agree that inactive members have a negative impact on the project and think that asking the inactive editors to reconfirm their membership of the task force is reasonable. While, as Kudpung has said, most of the inactive editors will simply say yes (when asked to reconfirm their membership) then go back to being inactive, it might succeed in getting rid of some. I like 28bytes idea of "giving them something to do". I'm sure some task force members are inactive simply because they don't think there is anything for them to do (or they are not sure what to contribute to). All this being said, I also agree with Kudpung's above statement that the members targeted by this reconfirmation idea should be chosen with caution. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quote
 * ...and then there are all those who recognise "something must be done", but perpetually oppose the something that's being proposed in favour of a "better idea". The mechanism is rather like using a chat-show phone-in to manage the intricacies of a federal budget – it does not work for issues that need time, thought, responsibility and attention. I doubt this problem can be fixed – since it needs structural change to decision making – which is impossible for precisely the same reasons. —Scott MacDonald

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ygm
Nothing pressing.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 00:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:New pages
Hi there. If I wanted to sugest these new templates where would be the correct place to do this? Oddbodz (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. First and foremost probably best on the WT:NPP page. That (and it's sub pages) is where the changes to NPP are discussed, and the pages are on the watchlists of active admins and NPP project minders. The most important thing to understand here is that no major changes to policy or process are done without consensus. If you get enough interest at project level, it can be proposed at the village pump. if it gets enough support there, it will go to a central Request for Discussion. My personal view on these templates however, is that although I am very heavily in favour of any measures that will improve the quality of New Page Patrolling (perhaps by limiting it to users with significantly more experience), and while I'm equally strongly in favour of the new rules that are being discussed to limit who can create new pages, I feel any new ideas at this time are coming at the wrong moment and would not help the current situation. Creating an article that merely passes as fleetingly approved for immediate retention, is not a big deal. Just having created an article that does not get templated or deleted is not reason for congratulation or award. For one thing, as any seasoned new page patroller knows, around 80% of all new articles go to CSD, PROD, or AfD, a huge number get marked with maintenance and multiple issue tags, and a significant  number get tagged and deleted later. The template might heighten the disappointment of editors who rejoice at the congratulations, only to be told later that their article is crap and heading for the recycle bin - or already in it. At a time when we are trying to keep authors, this is probably not the best way to go about it, especially when New Page Patrol is already in an appalling state and frightening  people away due to the high number of  inexperienced users who aren't sure how to use the 100s of templates they are supposed to be using already. I'm not trying to discourage you for coming up with ideas on new page creation or their control. What I am saying is that it would be an even better idea right now to wait and see if in a couple of weeks we even have need for new page patrolling by newbies, or to congratulate everyone who creates a new, clean, ROM stub. One question our recent research also aims to answer is why the newest and most inexperience editors always head for the semi-administrative tasks rather than demonstrating their skills at providing or improving content. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Would you mind re-wording the your question. Oddbodz (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please ndent your messages. I've tried to be of help here, and if anything is not clear please let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that more discussion is required before a suggestion is added to WP:NPP to template a user's talk page when an article they created has been successfully patrolled. There are all kinds of problems I can think of with such a suggestion.  As it is currently proposed, I would oppose it.  Also, my opinion is that the wording of the template is misleading.  Looks like the template was just added to TfD.  I'll comment more there.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> spout 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nong Khai
Do you have pix of the "Garden of Sorrows"? --Pawyilee (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, and I don't  know it, but if you  tell  me what  and where it is, I'll go  and make some for you  when I  get  home next week. I'm down  near Korat  for the next  couple of days. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Apple Farm Inn (San Luis Obispo, California)
Good evening, Please see the talk page for Apple Farm Inn (San Luis Obispo, California) for a further explanation of and my views on the newborn article. I encourage you to post on the talk page so I can know your opinions and we can work accordingly to reach the best solution.

AGF :)  Red Sox  Fan274   (talk~contribs) 06:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeff mccomsey
Hi Kudpung... this is the second time in two days this has happened... The original article appears to have been speedily deleted at the moment I was tagging it as a stub, resulting in an article creation artifact, where it looks like I was the original contributor.

Strangely, it was deleted under CSD-A3... I'm not sure I agree with that. <FONT COLOR="#006633">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#339966">&#38; the soapdish</FONT>  15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, according to the logs, it was deleted once under A3. According to the content that I have just checked, it should have been A7 and would still probably have been deleted as not demonstrating notability. I just BLPPRODed the recreation, instead of tagging it for CSD as it might assert notability if it is properly referenced, but at the moment it has no sources. The article is very poor quality, has a misspelly pagenasme, and I have found no RS for it. Nevertheless, as I said, I have not deleted it. If you wish to query the earlier deletion, do not hesitate to discuss it with the deleting admin, and the patroler who appears to have wrongly tagged it. Articles can quite legitimately be BLPPRODDED very quickly, the idea being to catch the creator while they are still logged in .It only takes one suitable RS to remove a BLPPROD tag. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi both. Given that that article seems to be staying I have restored the deleted edits to allow for proper attribution to the original author. Cheers,  nancy  15:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Nancy. <FONT COLOR="#006633">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#339966">&#38; the soapdish</FONT>  17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern was mainly that, by a quirk of an edit conflict, the wrong user had been notified of the PROD. <FONT COLOR="#006633">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#339966">&#38; the soapdish</FONT>  17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

re congratulations
Thanks likewise on admin Michael

Thanks...
Yes, I wasn't expecting too much from it in terms of support, but equally, I wasn't quite expecting it to be as stressful as it has been. I'm not surprised the experience proves too much for some. <FONT COLOR="#006633">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#339966">&#38; the soapdish</FONT>  07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're doing OK  for the moment. i  won't  tell  you  how stressful mine was right  up until theast  minute. keep  your fingers crossed, watch out  for tricky  Qs -  remember it's an open  book  exam, and don't  feel  you  have to  make rebuttals to  every  'Oppose' however mean they  may  seem. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

kdp
hi kudpung, it sounds like that u r a southindian (from ur name).r u indian ? Adi21124 (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC) ''' <font color ="darkpink" face= "Lucida Calligraphy">Adi21124   &bull; <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="rosepurple">Talk2Me
 * Hi. If you look  at  my  user page you'll  find everything  you  need to know. If it's of any  interest however, I have lived and worked in  Delhi  for a short while. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * it means U have visited delhi ok can u tell me the date cause i m living in delhi.reply me backAdi21124 (talk) '''<font color ="darkpink" face= "Lucida Calligraphy">Adi21124   &bull; <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="rosepurple">Talk2Me

Egmont (media group)
Hi Kudpung

I'm fairly new at editing wikipages, but I hope you can help me on my path to become a better wikipedian. I want to make a general page about the Egmont media group, this page should solely be based on facts, an should have no advertisement value. I can see that you have marked the page: (diff | hist). . Egmont media group‎; 11:21. . (+94) . . Kudpung (talk | contribs) (Added with parameters notability, primarysources and self-published tag to article using TW)

What is it that I'm doing wrong since this page isn't being accepted?

Br Pbrun Pbrun (talk)


 * Hi.Egmont (media group) now redirects to  Egmont Publishing, a page that  I  have not  edited or tagged. If you  would like to  know why  it  was redirecetd, you  can look up  the history  of the Egmont (media group) redirect by clicking  on  the redirected from... link  at  the top  of the Egmont Publishing page; then on  the 'history' tab of the redirect  page. You  will  see a full  list  of edits that  were made right  up  until  it was redirected. If you  then click  on any  'diff'  on  that  list you  will  see an exact copy  of the page as it  was at  that  edit.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * it seems that the two pages have been more or less alike therefore the redirect. When I add info to the page about Egmont media group in general it is deleted because the content resembles the content on the Egmont publishing page. Wikipedia has apparently focus on fewer pages with more information, which seems resenable. Therefore I would like to change the heading of Egmont publishing to Egmont Media Group so that I can add the right facts at one page. but it doesn't as a possiblity. I have then merged the info from Egmont Publishing into Egmont Media group. The question is then, will this prevent the Egmont media group wiki from being deleted, and that the Egmont Publishing is then deleted instead? Pbrun (talk)


 * Egmont Publishing  appears to  be sufficiently  referenced and not  in  danger of deletion. Please remember however  that  any  information  you  add to it  must  also be referenced to  third-party media and that  self-published sources by  the group or any  of its constituents are not  acceptable. If after making  substantial  additions you  find that  the focus of the article has shifted to another entity  of this organisation, you  can make a suggestion  for moving  it  (renaming) on  the article's talk  page. If a discussion  between the contributing  editors reaches a consensus for the move, it  can be done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Richardson, TX
Hello Kudpung, I like your suggestions related to the Richardson, TX article. For some reason every two years around this time, the period before local elections are held in Richardson, many people try to put out false information making the state of the city sound better or worse than the facts. I think it is due to people wanting incumbent council members to either win or loose and be replaced. Thank you for you help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewLB20 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. BTW, please remember to sign your posts :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)