User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug (1) 2010

OTT
You said that "these digs were a bit OTT". Now I would be the first to admit that my messages frequently seem to have that effect. So in the interests of my education, I really would be grateful if you could provide me with a re-wording of my message which you feel is under the top.

Attempting to stay under the top, my response to your reply is: I have never heard any mention of Commons upload hanging. I would encourage you to try again and if the problem persists, seek assistance on the technical help pages. Please spare a thought for those who transfer your images to the Commons: would it be possible to save them the effort? &mdash; RHaworth 14:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You've done it again, and in your post below. In spite of being aware of the effect, you appear not to have fully mastered that quaint English trait of 'being nice'. Preempting complaints by admitting that you are a cantankerous old bugger does not give you a licence to be one, and in spite of the fact that I wish that more syops had your highly developed sense of judgement in issues requiring admin decisions, it does not endear me to wanting to follow your school-masterly remonstrations. It undoes the excellent work you do. in addition to WP:BITE, maybe we should have a 'don't bite the experienced oldies' rule too,. In other words, perhaps you would be happier if I simply gave up contributing to this encyclopedia. What people tend to forget is that there are editors like me who go around cleaning up everyone else's mess - particularly on school pages - and gnomes don't fish for barnstars.--Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Something which would really endear you to geographically-minded editors would be if you could provide a grid ref or lat/long for each geographic image you upload. I ploughed through all these 162 images in the hope of getting a location for File:BarnardsGreenTrough.JPG but no joy. (By a curious coincidence, today I have added no less than seven images to Commons:Category:Drinking fountains in England!) &mdash; RHaworth 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there are no coordinates. I have never seen a rule where they are required. Only very few of the photos I use come from Geograph. Perhaps you are not aware, but some editors go to the trouble of taking photos themselves. Perhaps you would prefer if I refrained from driving around the English countryside to take copyright-free photos to illustrate the Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Language help
Hi Kudpung, I noticed your multiple language proficiencies on your userpage and thought I'd take the liberty of telling you about a little project I started at meta:Death anomalies table. So far we only have the English, German and Latin projects extracting data, but we are inputting data from about 70. I've done a fair bit of work on the EN wiki list Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis but I'd be interested in your views on this project. Thanks  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi WSC. It's a very  noble project, and an essential  one too. While there is of course nothing  more scandalous than declaring  an LP for dead, some may  have passed on  since their articles were written, and that  would be routine housekeeping. I not  sure I  would get  much  enjoyment  out  of locating  new pages for the Death  Anomalies Table, but  I  will  gladly  help  find out the truth and update the pages on the Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis - certainly  for German  and French, and possibly  a bit  for some of the other languages I  can stagger through.--Kudpung (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudpung, we've now managed to get this down from 550 anomalies to less than 200, and you can read from some of the remainder that a few of those left are 1920s sportsmen marked as "probable twentieth century deaths" on FR wiki and living on EN wiki. But the ones where one can easily establish that en wiki is simply out of date are now getting rare and a bit of multilingual detective work is really useful.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi WSC. I've started on this list with  No.1 because it happens to  be a German one. It's interesting  to  note that  the de.Wiki does not  in  fact  record him as being  dead. It  makes reference however to  the en Wiki, according  to  which, his death  sentence was commuted to  life imprisonment. The next  point  is that  after an hour  searching  the Internet  in  all  the languages that  I  can  read,  I  have come up  with  nothing  except  a suggestion  that  he 'may  have died while in  prison'. We don't deal  with  'maybes' so  there is no point  in  using  it  as a reference. The only  suggestion  I  can make in  such  cases, and I'm  sure there are going  to  be many,  is that  we make a mention  in  the article such  as 'Whether X remains alive as of 2010 remains unclear.' What  do  you  think? --Kudpung (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As you probably  noticed, I've already  had a couple of stabs at  this, but  the bot  puts some of them  back on  the list. What  am I  doing  wrong?--Kudpung (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly have noticed, thanks for that. The bot runs every night and works on categories and interwiki links, so I don't bother to change the report I just work from the middle or end and leave the first items to others. If someone has indeed died and you change the category from living people to their year of death then as you've probably noticed they disappear from the next version of the list. When you spot a situation where the interwiki link is wrong because the two people are different, then you need to check the history to see if one of the articles has been changed from one person to another, if that hasn't happened and its just an incorrect link then you need to remove it from both articles, otherwise a bot will come along and put the interwiki link back. If you do have an article changed from one notable person to another then you need an admin to disentangle them.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  08:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Kelment Agalliu
Hi, just to let you know, I changed the CSD tag from to  on Kelment Agalliu, because it is a person, not a company. Thanks,  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, it was a slip of a trackpad. I was just about to fix it. Thanks for doing it. We now have a maniac on the run!--Kudpung (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears so. Good thing he keeps tagging the pages as when creating them. I don't really see the need to remove them and re-tag.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  21:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * because the site software doesn't register them if they are created with page creation.--Kudpung (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm didn't know that. Anyway, he's blocked now.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Kudpung's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Colin McLaren
Hi, I am interested to know what you would like altered in this short chronology of Colin McLaren's life. I wrote the piece for Profile management and I am Colin's editor. I can omit the reference to Profile if you feel that is objectionable or advertising in some way, however as Colin's agents they can be easily found on the internet anyway. Colin's career highlights are as listed and documented in the book Infiltration which i also edited and which has just completed filming by the Underbelly team. The facts are also confirmable through newspaper and journalistic coverage of the time. Would this help if I included it? Would you be happier if Colin were in touch to corroborate the information. I have his email available. He is a widely respected author with Melbourne University Press and his restaurant had been listed in the Age Good Food Guide. Your reply would be welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizmolucy (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Gizmolucy (please remember to sign your edits), you'll  get  all  the information  you  need for improving  this article by  following  the links I  placed on  the article's talk  page. There's a lot of reading  to  be done, but  I'm  afraid that's the downside of wanting  to  contribute to  the encyclopedia anyone can edit! I  don't  doubt  for a moment  that Colin  is notable enough for an entry  here, but pages must conform to  a standard layout and to  inclusion  criteria. (see also: WP:BURDEN). If you  are an editor, then you'll  know how to  do  all  this, but  you  must  be very  careful  as you have a clear conflict  of interest. See WP:COI. Damn  rules, rules, rules, I  know, but  we all  have to  abide by  them, and the last  thing  we want  is to  get  in direct  contact  with  the subject  of an encyclopedic article - we must  remain  distant  and neutral. You  need to  do  all  this quickly, because another editor  might  not  be so  disposed to  give you  time. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your comments. I have made an attempt to address the issues you note. Would appreciate further feedback addressing any issues if requiredGizmolucy (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Gizmolucy


 * I have the article on  my  watch list and I'll  check  back  from  time to  time.--Kudpung (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wikipedia is all completely new to me and am having an extremely difficult time getting this right. It seems like the whole thing has half crashed because I added a few external references requested by another administrator. Can you help. I have no idea what the problem is and there appears to be no comment on his/her page. Thanks. GizmolucyGizmolucy (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing can be damaged -  everything  is recoverable. May  I  suggest  that  you  prepare the article in  your sandbox page, then move it  to  published article space when it is finished? There's no deadline for it, is there? (rhetorical  question). I'll  take a look  now and see what's happened.--Kudpung (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there's no deadline. Sadly, I thought it would be quite easy but have got myself into a big mess. Thanks very much for your help :) GizmolucyGizmolucy (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I see there are still issues listed with this article. I am wondering when this problem 'heading' can be removed. i do not see peacock issues now or the other items listed. can you advise how the removal of this can be achieved. Once again, thanks for your assistance, Gizmolucy114.74.158.237 (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll look  into  it. In  the meantime, could you  check  THIS out. Once you  have mastered these things you  will  want  to  come back  and write more articles for the Wikipedia. --Kudpung (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article for you  in  proper encyclopedic language. See it at User:Kudpung/Colin McLaren. You will  notice the difference, and you will see that  this cuts out all of the promotional  tone and hyperbole. Biographical articles must  include dates and places of birth, death, education,etc.. Please fill the gaps I  have left  with  XXXXXXXXX's, then I  will  post  the article to  main  space and remove the problem  banners.--Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass creations of non notable buildings

 * These articles i'm writing are already written in other wikipedia languages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangp (talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't  help  I'm  afraid. Other Wikipedias are notoriously  less strict than the English  language one. Now will  you  please learn  to  sign  your messages, I  and a bot  have both  asked you. I'll  help  where I  can but  you've got  to  come at  least  halfway.--Kudpung (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * but these buildings are famous music venues and if uu read about them you'll see the're notable Evangp (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because a well  known band played there, that  does not  make them  famous at  all. Now please stop  creating these articles otherwise you  will probably  be blocked.--Kudpung (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Freedom Hall Civic Center
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Freedom Hall Civic Center, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE WRONG! EVERYBODY IS EDITING MY GREAT ARTICLES AND MAKING THEM BETTER! THINK BEFORE YOU TRY AND DELETE! HA! Evangp (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And that's why ten editors put warnings on  your talk  page.--Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

--Kudpung (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)== Countries in Europe ==

Countries in Europe
Hello Kudpung,

As per your request I'd like to try to make the case for why I feel an article about countries in Europe should include the constituent countries of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (as well as the Faroe Isles).

Truth be told I don't have much confidence in a solution any other way! The 2 editors who have hijacked the debate and are now so vigorously refusing to accept any of the compromise that even independent editors have offered - A quick search for shows literally dozens of articles relating to the politics the British isles (or former colonies) where they've attempted to force through politically motivated changes to articles without worry for sourcing evidence or seeking consensus with long standing editors of those articles. I'm quite new to editing Wikipedia, but this experience has really opened my eyes to the political agendas of a few of the editors!

But, anyhow. It is my belief that an article which lists countries in Europe should include all entities officially defined as countries. It is not for editors at Wikipedia to decided which entities are, and are not countries when there are official sources which described them precisely as such. For example, Wales is officially defined as a country by The Commonwealth Secretariat, The UK prime minister, The office of statistics. The direct question of whether Wales is a country is even answered on the Official gateway to Wales] website run by the Welsh government (which even states the acts of law which officially and legally defined Wales as a country). Other constituent countries have similar pages.

Although there are a number of entities which historically were countries and have kept some level of sovereignty such as Bavaria, Catalonia or Quebec they are, to my knowledge, now neither internally or externally recognised specifically as a country nor ever described as such by official sources.

I believe in a common sense approach to this issue - quite simply.... If someone's taken the time to search for an article about countries in Europe - we should tell them about the countries in Europe with neither political bias or spin! Ask any American if Scotland is a country... I bet they'll say yes! As I said in a previous post, ask any kid which country won the World cup in 1966, I bet they'll say England...or - should I say, ask any kid in Wales which country won the grandslam in 2005 & 2008 ;). In many ways, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck!

There were a number of compromises put forward; including one initially suggested by the main opponent to inclusion 'BritishWatcher' which was, at the time, accepted by all sides - it was even (kindly) built and put live by Mclay1 (The main editor of the article and someone who was neutral to this debate). It listed the main sovereign states but near the bottom of the page had a separate table for nations which were defined as constituent countries - including the Faroe Isle which also fall into this category. However, despite initially proposing the compromise, the main opponent decided instead to revert Mclay1's change and has since refused to even entertain the idea of compromise.

As an independent mind (and someone who seems to have some links to both England and Wales) what's your opinion? Do you believe the article would benefit from including constituent countries while still listing the the sovereign states? or do you feel that simple being legally defined as a country is not enough to warrant inclusion into the article?

Many thanks again for your time.

--Richardeast (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm the best person to offer a response, but I guess one is deserved. The case here is that the constituent countries of the UK do not belong in the List of European countries and territories.
 * I'd first like to point out that the Faroe islands are not involved in this debate, they became an unfortunate victim of it. When the list of constituent countries was created, someone moved the Faroe islands into it, and it got deleted with the others. The Faroe islands were included before because they do not form part of what is considered Denmark, they are a completely autonomous area, and thus they were included because of their being not independent but not fully part of another state, much like the British bases on cyprus and Gibraltar.
 * As for compromise, placing the constituent countries in an independent table was rejected due to the fact that they do not belong on the list, which is the point of this debate. Another compromise, the renaming of the article, was tentatively accepted, however it seems like it will cause much ado about nothing. It remains an option.
 * The main argument of those who want to include ESWNI are that they are called "countries". The problem is that they are "countries" in a different definition of the word. The word "country" can mean many things, but in the case of this list it is used as a synonym of Sovereign state. ESWNI are not such sovereign states. They are definitely considered to be "countries", but not the countries that are on this list.
 * There are many subnational entities in the world, such as some of the ones listed by Richardeast, which are definitively called "countries" by their government. Some are called "nations". An example in Europe would be Catalonia, which is recognizes as a "nation" by itself and Spain. Nation is another word with multiple meaning, and the meaning of Catalonia's status is synonymous to the status of ESWNI, which are also known as the "Home nations".
 * In terms of sources, many of the website which use the word "country" to describe ESWNI do not include them in their own Lists of countries. A prominent example is the BBC, prominent because, well, its run by the UK.
 * I'm not sure what americans have to do with it, but I'm sure they wouldn't consider Scotland to be equivalent to the USA.
 * The "who won X sports competition" argument is a strawman, ESWNI all field their own teams in some sporting events, and none of the editors deny that. That does not make them eligible for the list.
 * The sum of the argument is, EWSNI are not countries in the sense of the article, which uses it as a synonym for "Sovereign state". Making "country" in the sense of ESWNI equivalent to "country" in the sense of the UK is wrong.
 * Thank's for providing a neutral ear, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it's with you Kudpung - that's the gist of the 2 arguments! (though one final note to to correct an inaccuracy in Chipmuck's statement, the BBC in fact does list Wales' 'country profile', yes giving her the official status of a Semi-autonomous part of United Kingdom (in the same way Faroe Isles are a Self-governing part of Denmark) but specifically referred to the country as exactly that - a country.)  --Richardeast (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No inaccuracy in my statement, it was simply misinterpreted to mean that I said the BBC did not call Wales a country. What I said was the BBC did not included Wales in a List of countries. See here . ESWNI are not even in the territories list! (The faroe islands, however, are) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to say something too: Article titles should reflect their content and vice versa. They should adhere to Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. Choosing criteria that excludes verifiable countries must entail significant original research and would fail to be of a neutral point of view. Editors seem to be coming at this from the wrong (i.e. non-Wikipedia) angle. If entities are verifiably countries, they should be included on a “list of countries”. To choose not to include them would fail to adhere to core Wikipedia policies, namely Neutral point of view and No original research. Much has been made of the “if we include Scotland we would have to include the German Länder and the US states” argument. While this may, or may not be true, I have yet to see a reliable source saying “Lower Saxony is a country that is part of Germany” or “Utah is a country that is part of the USA”. And if it turns out that they do, then, as an encyclopaedia we should reflect that, and they should be included. The article List of European countries and territories needs either to include verifiable countries, or a separate article should be created for the sovereign states that some editors seem to want to restrict the article to. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to try to reach an amicable solution. Daicaregos (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a few other points which have not been covered here. I do not dispute the fact England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are described as countries by reliable sources how ever as Chipmunkdavis mentioned a major source like the BBC which defines them as countries, chooses only to list the UK in its country lists. This is a pattern repeated by many reliable sources, so for example the CIA world Fact book has a list of countries and locations, it does not include Wales and Scotland in its list, only the United Kingdom.

What people have to remember is there are dozens of Lists of countries. Most of these lists only include sovereign states, or sovereign states and territories, there for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are left off these lists. It would be helpful if all of those lists that say country were renamed to say list of sovereign states to avoid potential conflict, but when this matter was discuss at a central location involving editors from many different lists there was no support for renaming all of those articles, many of the editors that responded agreed that just because the term country is in the title not everything under the sun that may have been described as country has to be listed. One thing that several people felt strongly about is lists should follow the sources. So for example List of countries by GDP (nominal) has 3 major sources, all 3 do not include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, they simply cover the United Kingdom. Just a short while ago Richardeast said in this edit that i should not worry about Wales being included on that list because the sources do not use it. He has basically accepted that despite an article title saying "List of countries by GDP (nominal)" Wales does not have to be included on that list. Yet this is what the whole dispute is about. Editors on one side are saying as the title says country it MUST include everything described as a country. If it is ok for sources to cause entities to be excluded from a list, why can a clearly defined introduction not do the same?

This issue has come up a few times. I think when it comes to a specific article the most comprehensive debate was held over the primary article of all country lists on wikipedia which use to be found at List of countries, going to the talk page of that redirect and following the debate through the archives will show the same sorts of arguments coming up then. In the end it was agreed that List of countries would become a redirect to the List of sovereign states page that already existed. I think that was the first place i got involved in this "list" dispute at shortly after arriving on wikipedia. Since that redirect the sovereign state list has been very stable relating to the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland issues. So dealing with the title certainly does help create stability although as i pointed out in my previous paragraph, i do not think there is a need to rename every article title, as richardeast admitted, a title can say country without it having to include every country like Wales.

I am not against compromise (i accepted a compromise originally until other editors raised concerns i expected would come up) but a compromise has to be for the right reasons. At present the argument is the title says country there for it must include everything that any reliable source has described as a country. I can not accept that reasoning because of the impact it would have on more than 50 country lists which have to be taken into account and not ignored. I am prepared to support some form of mediation where all the editors involved in this dispute can try and hammer out an agreement, which would include acceptance of EWSNI on certain lists (including the one we are debating now), on the condition that there is acceptance by other editors that these do not belong in the vast majority of lists of countries on wikipedia. But that is not possible when the argument is based simply on the title of the list.

If some form of mediation like that is not going to be possible. Then i think we should move ahead with the page move which has support, and would resolve this matter in the same way List of countries has been resolved. I think there are about 6 or 7 lists relating to the European continent one. We should consider a group move to bring those all into line with a title someone suggested along the lines of List of sovereign states and dependent territories in (enter continent here). Whilst on this point, i would also like to remind people this is basically a sub list to the primary list found at List of countries by continent. That list has a very clear introduction which defines what is and is not included well. Trying to keep all such lists in line with each other has always been one of my concerns when it comes to country lists. It is complicated and confusing to have many different policies and methods across all the lists. One other point which i should mention. Some suggest we should take this out of our own hands all together, if we followed an international standard like ISO 3166-1, this is something i would support as it is then up to internationally recognised bodies and not a few editors picking and choosing what can and can not be included and can easily be explained in the introduction.

Anyway that will do for now, sorry my post is a little long but i wanted to include all of the main points. (one final point sorry, we should not forget that this list has existed for a couple of years, it has been fairly stable until this dispute about them being included came up. Nothing has changed between 2008 and 2010. The list was not inaccurate in the past because it did not list England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and it is not incorrect now. The fact it has only been raised recently highlights most people are not shocked that these nations are not on such a list of countries.) sorry again for the long post and the several edits/corrections BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input everyone. I'll do  some background checks and follow up on  your links and leads over the next  couple of days. I think I'm probably  going to be making  a suggestion  for a compromise solution, and if you still  feel it needs a broader consensus  I'll   suggest  a suitable neutral  motion for an RFC, but let's wait and see. I'll leave a message on your article's talk  page when I'm ready.--Kudpung (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeating
Sorry Kudpung but I advise you shouldn't repeat a speedy deletion warning on one's talk page if you see it has already been given.As you did on Campion500's talk page. I hope you understand, thanks. Well I had a query, how can I create tables? I'll be grateful to you if you do help. Regards, --Sainsf&lt;^&gt; (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OTT
You said that "these digs were a bit OTT". Now I would be the first to admit that my messages frequently seem to have that effect. So in the interests of my education, I really would be grateful if you could provide me with a re-wording of my message which you feel is under the top.

Attempting to stay under the top, my response to your reply is: I have never heard any mention of Commons upload hanging. I would encourage you to try again and if the problem persists, seek assistance on the technical help pages. Please spare a thought for those who transfer your images to the Commons: would it be possible to save them the effort? &mdash; RHaworth 14:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You've done it again, and in your post below. In spite of being aware of the effect, you appear not to have fully mastered that quaint English trait of 'being nice'. Preempting complaints by admitting that you are a cantankerous old bugger does not give you a licence to be one, and in spite of the fact that I wish that more syops had your highly developed sense of judgement in issues requiring admin decisions, it does not endear me to wanting to follow your school-masterly remonstrations. It undoes the excellent work you do. in addition to WP:BITE, maybe we should have a 'don't bite the experienced oldies' rule too,. In other words, perhaps you would be happier if I simply gave up contributing to this encyclopedia. What people tend to forget is that there are editors like me who go around cleaning up everyone else's mess - particularly on school pages - and gnomes don't fish for barnstars.--Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Something which would really endear you to geographically-minded editors would be if you could provide a grid ref or lat/long for each geographic image you upload. I ploughed through all these 162 images in the hope of getting a location for File:BarnardsGreenTrough.JPG but no joy. (By a curious coincidence, today I have added no less than seven images to Commons:Category:Drinking fountains in England!) &mdash; RHaworth 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there are no coordinates. I have never seen a rule where they are required. Only very few of the photos I use come from Geograph. Perhaps you are not aware, but some editors go to the trouble of taking photos themselves. Perhaps you would prefer if I refrained from driving around the English countryside to take copyright-free photos to illustrate the Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Language help
Hi Kudpung, I noticed your multiple language proficiencies on your userpage and thought I'd take the liberty of telling you about a little project I started at meta:Death anomalies table. So far we only have the English, German and Latin projects extracting data, but we are inputting data from about 70. I've done a fair bit of work on the EN wiki list Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis but I'd be interested in your views on this project. Thanks  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi WSC. It's a very  noble project, and an essential  one too. While there is of course nothing  more scandalous than declaring  an LP for dead, some may  have passed on  since their articles were written, and that  would be routine housekeeping. I not  sure I  would get  much  enjoyment  out  of locating  new pages for the Death  Anomalies Table, but  I  will  gladly  help  find out the truth and update the pages on the Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis - certainly  for German  and French, and possibly  a bit  for some of the other languages I  can stagger through.--Kudpung (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudpung, we've now managed to get this down from 550 anomalies to less than 200, and you can read from some of the remainder that a few of those left are 1920s sportsmen marked as "probable twentieth century deaths" on FR wiki and living on EN wiki. But the ones where one can easily establish that en wiki is simply out of date are now getting rare and a bit of multilingual detective work is really useful.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi WSC. I've started on this list with  No.1 because it happens to  be a German one. It's interesting  to  note that  the de.Wiki does not  in  fact  record him as being  dead. It  makes reference however to  the en Wiki, according  to  which, his death  sentence was commuted to  life imprisonment. The next  point  is that  after an hour  searching  the Internet  in  all  the languages that  I  can  read,  I  have come up  with  nothing  except  a suggestion  that  he 'may  have died while in  prison'. We don't deal  with  'maybes' so  there is no point  in  using  it  as a reference. The only  suggestion  I  can make in  such  cases, and I'm  sure there are going  to  be many,  is that  we make a mention  in  the article such  as 'Whether X remains alive as of 2010 remains unclear.' What  do  you  think? --Kudpung (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung, when this began most of the anomalies were indeed people who are long dead and EN wiki was out of date. But most of the easy ones are now resolved and what we have left includes some interesting anomalies. I would be inclined to look at the history of the DE article, I've now corrected two or three of their articles where someone was a bit over enthusiastic with categorisation, and it sounds like that maybe the case here (if the category was added by a regular user who didn't add a reference or do anything elseto the article then I'm inclined to assume a category mistake - especially if that year was in the article). I've now fixed such errors in German Latin and Japanese.... And in only on of those languages could I so much as order a beer.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  11:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Kelment Agalliu
Hi, just to let you know, I changed the CSD tag from to  on Kelment Agalliu, because it is a person, not a company. Thanks,  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, it was a slip of a trackpad. I was just about to fix it. Thanks for doing it. We now have a maniac on the run!--Kudpung (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears so. Good thing he keeps tagging the pages as when creating them. I don't really see the need to remove them and re-tag.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  21:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * because the site software doesn't register them if they are created with page creation.--Kudpung (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm didn't know that. Anyway, he's blocked now.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Kudpung's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Colin McLaren
Hi, I am interested to know what you would like altered in this short chronology of Colin McLaren's life. I wrote the piece for Profile management and I am Colin's editor. I can omit the reference to Profile if you feel that is objectionable or advertising in some way, however as Colin's agents they can be easily found on the internet anyway. Colin's career highlights are as listed and documented in the book Infiltration which i also edited and which has just completed filming by the Underbelly team. The facts are also confirmable through newspaper and journalistic coverage of the time. Would this help if I included it? Would you be happier if Colin were in touch to corroborate the information. I have his email available. He is a widely respected author with Melbourne University Press and his restaurant had been listed in the Age Good Food Guide. Your reply would be welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizmolucy (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Gizmolucy (please remember to sign your edits), you'll  get  all  the information  you  need for improving  this article by  following  the links I  placed on  the article's talk  page. There's a lot of reading  to  be done, but  I'm  afraid that's the downside of wanting  to  contribute to  the encyclopedia anyone can edit! I  don't  doubt  for a moment  that Colin  is notable enough for an entry  here, but pages must conform to  a standard layout and to  inclusion  criteria. (see also: WP:BURDEN). If you  are an editor, then you'll  know how to  do  all  this, but  you  must  be very  careful  as you have a clear conflict  of interest. See WP:COI. Damn  rules, rules, rules, I  know, but  we all  have to  abide by  them, and the last  thing  we want  is to  get  in direct  contact  with  the subject  of an encyclopedic article - we must  remain  distant  and neutral. You  need to  do  all  this quickly, because another editor  might  not  be so  disposed to  give you  time. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your comments. I have made an attempt to address the issues you note. Would appreciate further feedback addressing any issues if requiredGizmolucy (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Gizmolucy


 * I have the article on  my  watch list and I'll  check  back  from  time to  time.--Kudpung (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wikipedia is all completely new to me and am having an extremely difficult time getting this right. It seems like the whole thing has half crashed because I added a few external references requested by another administrator. Can you help. I have no idea what the problem is and there appears to be no comment on his/her page. Thanks. GizmolucyGizmolucy (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing can be damaged -  everything  is recoverable. May  I  suggest  that  you  prepare the article in  your sandbox page, then move it  to  published article space when it is finished? There's no deadline for it, is there? (rhetorical  question). I'll  take a look  now and see what's happened.--Kudpung (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there's no deadline. Sadly, I thought it would be quite easy but have got myself into a big mess. Thanks very much for your help :) GizmolucyGizmolucy (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I see there are still issues listed with this article. I am wondering when this problem 'heading' can be removed. i do not see peacock issues now or the other items listed. can you advise how the removal of this can be achieved. Once again, thanks for your assistance, Gizmolucy114.74.158.237 (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll look  into  it. In  the meantime, could you  check  THIS out. Once you  have mastered these things you  will  want  to  come back  and write more articles for the Wikipedia. --Kudpung (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article for you  in  proper encyclopedic language. See it at User:Kudpung/Colin McLaren. You will  notice the difference, and you will see that  this cuts out all of the promotional  tone and hyperbole. Biographical articles must  include dates and places of birth, death, education,etc.. Please fill the gaps I  have left  with  XXXXXXXXX's, then I  will  post  the article to  main  space and remove the problem  banners.--Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass creations of non notable buildings

 * These articles i'm writing are already written in other wikipedia languages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangp (talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't  help  I'm  afraid. Other Wikipedias are notoriously  less strict than the English  language one. Now will  you  please learn  to  sign  your messages, I  and a bot  have both  asked you. I'll  help  where I  can but  you've got  to  come at  least  halfway.--Kudpung (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * but these buildings are famous music venues and if uu read about them you'll see the're notable Evangp (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because a well  known band played there, that  does not  make them  famous at  all. Now please stop  creating these articles otherwise you  will probably  be blocked.--Kudpung (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Freedom Hall Civic Center
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Freedom Hall Civic Center, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE WRONG! EVERYBODY IS EDITING MY GREAT ARTICLES AND MAKING THEM BETTER! THINK BEFORE YOU TRY AND DELETE! HA! Evangp (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And that's why ten editors put warnings on  your talk  page.--Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

--Kudpung (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)== Countries in Europe ==

Countries in Europe
Hello Kudpung,

As per your request I'd like to try to make the case for why I feel an article about countries in Europe should include the constituent countries of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (as well as the Faroe Isles).

Truth be told I don't have much confidence in a solution any other way! The 2 editors who have hijacked the debate and are now so vigorously refusing to accept any of the compromise that even independent editors have offered - A quick search for shows literally dozens of articles relating to the politics the British isles (or former colonies) where they've attempted to force through politically motivated changes to articles without worry for sourcing evidence or seeking consensus with long standing editors of those articles. I'm quite new to editing Wikipedia, but this experience has really opened my eyes to the political agendas of a few of the editors!

But, anyhow. It is my belief that an article which lists countries in Europe should include all entities officially defined as countries. It is not for editors at Wikipedia to decided which entities are, and are not countries when there are official sources which described them precisely as such. For example, Wales is officially defined as a country by The Commonwealth Secretariat, The UK prime minister, The office of statistics. The direct question of whether Wales is a country is even answered on the Official gateway to Wales] website run by the Welsh government (which even states the acts of law which officially and legally defined Wales as a country). Other constituent countries have similar pages.

Although there are a number of entities which historically were countries and have kept some level of sovereignty such as Bavaria, Catalonia or Quebec they are, to my knowledge, now neither internally or externally recognised specifically as a country nor ever described as such by official sources.

I believe in a common sense approach to this issue - quite simply.... If someone's taken the time to search for an article about countries in Europe - we should tell them about the countries in Europe with neither political bias or spin! Ask any American if Scotland is a country... I bet they'll say yes! As I said in a previous post, ask any kid which country won the World cup in 1966, I bet they'll say England...or - should I say, ask any kid in Wales which country won the grandslam in 2005 & 2008 ;). In many ways, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck!

There were a number of compromises put forward; including one initially suggested by the main opponent to inclusion 'BritishWatcher' which was, at the time, accepted by all sides - it was even (kindly) built and put live by Mclay1 (The main editor of the article and someone who was neutral to this debate). It listed the main sovereign states but near the bottom of the page had a separate table for nations which were defined as constituent countries - including the Faroe Isle which also fall into this category. However, despite initially proposing the compromise, the main opponent decided instead to revert Mclay1's change and has since refused to even entertain the idea of compromise.

As an independent mind (and someone who seems to have some links to both England and Wales) what's your opinion? Do you believe the article would benefit from including constituent countries while still listing the the sovereign states? or do you feel that simple being legally defined as a country is not enough to warrant inclusion into the article?

Many thanks again for your time.

--Richardeast (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm the best person to offer a response, but I guess one is deserved. The case here is that the constituent countries of the UK do not belong in the List of European countries and territories.
 * I'd first like to point out that the Faroe islands are not involved in this debate, they became an unfortunate victim of it. When the list of constituent countries was created, someone moved the Faroe islands into it, and it got deleted with the others. The Faroe islands were included before because they do not form part of what is considered Denmark, they are a completely autonomous area, and thus they were included because of their being not independent but not fully part of another state, much like the British bases on cyprus and Gibraltar.
 * As for compromise, placing the constituent countries in an independent table was rejected due to the fact that they do not belong on the list, which is the point of this debate. Another compromise, the renaming of the article, was tentatively accepted, however it seems like it will cause much ado about nothing. It remains an option.
 * The main argument of those who want to include ESWNI are that they are called "countries". The problem is that they are "countries" in a different definition of the word. The word "country" can mean many things, but in the case of this list it is used as a synonym of Sovereign state. ESWNI are not such sovereign states. They are definitely considered to be "countries", but not the countries that are on this list.
 * There are many subnational entities in the world, such as some of the ones listed by Richardeast, which are definitively called "countries" by their government. Some are called "nations". An example in Europe would be Catalonia, which is recognizes as a "nation" by itself and Spain. Nation is another word with multiple meaning, and the meaning of Catalonia's status is synonymous to the status of ESWNI, which are also known as the "Home nations".
 * In terms of sources, many of the website which use the word "country" to describe ESWNI do not include them in their own Lists of countries. A prominent example is the BBC, prominent because, well, its run by the UK.
 * I'm not sure what americans have to do with it, but I'm sure they wouldn't consider Scotland to be equivalent to the USA.
 * The "who won X sports competition" argument is a strawman, ESWNI all field their own teams in some sporting events, and none of the editors deny that. That does not make them eligible for the list.
 * The sum of the argument is, EWSNI are not countries in the sense of the article, which uses it as a synonym for "Sovereign state". Making "country" in the sense of ESWNI equivalent to "country" in the sense of the UK is wrong.
 * Thank's for providing a neutral ear, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it's with you Kudpung - that's the gist of the 2 arguments! (though one final note to to correct an inaccuracy in Chipmuck's statement, the BBC in fact does list Wales' 'country profile', yes giving her the official status of a Semi-autonomous part of United Kingdom (in the same way Faroe Isles are a Self-governing part of Denmark) but specifically referred to the country as exactly that - a country.)  --Richardeast (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No inaccuracy in my statement, it was simply misinterpreted to mean that I said the BBC did not call Wales a country. What I said was the BBC did not included Wales in a List of countries. See here . ESWNI are not even in the territories list! (The faroe islands, however, are) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to say something too: Article titles should reflect their content and vice versa. They should adhere to Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. Choosing criteria that excludes verifiable countries must entail significant original research and would fail to be of a neutral point of view. Editors seem to be coming at this from the wrong (i.e. non-Wikipedia) angle. If entities are verifiably countries, they should be included on a “list of countries”. To choose not to include them would fail to adhere to core Wikipedia policies, namely Neutral point of view and No original research. Much has been made of the “if we include Scotland we would have to include the German Länder and the US states” argument. While this may, or may not be true, I have yet to see a reliable source saying “Lower Saxony is a country that is part of Germany” or “Utah is a country that is part of the USA”. And if it turns out that they do, then, as an encyclopaedia we should reflect that, and they should be included. The article List of European countries and territories needs either to include verifiable countries, or a separate article should be created for the sovereign states that some editors seem to want to restrict the article to. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to try to reach an amicable solution. Daicaregos (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a few other points which have not been covered here. I do not dispute the fact England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are described as countries by reliable sources how ever as Chipmunkdavis mentioned a major source like the BBC which defines them as countries, chooses only to list the UK in its country lists. This is a pattern repeated by many reliable sources, so for example the CIA world Fact book has a list of countries and locations, it does not include Wales and Scotland in its list, only the United Kingdom.

What people have to remember is there are dozens of Lists of countries. Most of these lists only include sovereign states, or sovereign states and territories, there for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are left off these lists. It would be helpful if all of those lists that say country were renamed to say list of sovereign states to avoid potential conflict, but when this matter was discuss at a central location involving editors from many different lists there was no support for renaming all of those articles, many of the editors that responded agreed that just because the term country is in the title not everything under the sun that may have been described as country has to be listed. One thing that several people felt strongly about is lists should follow the sources. So for example List of countries by GDP (nominal) has 3 major sources, all 3 do not include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, they simply cover the United Kingdom. Just a short while ago Richardeast said in this edit that i should not worry about Wales being included on that list because the sources do not use it. He has basically accepted that despite an article title saying "List of countries by GDP (nominal)" Wales does not have to be included on that list. Yet this is what the whole dispute is about. Editors on one side are saying as the title says country it MUST include everything described as a country. If it is ok for sources to cause entities to be excluded from a list, why can a clearly defined introduction not do the same?

This issue has come up a few times. I think when it comes to a specific article the most comprehensive debate was held over the primary article of all country lists on wikipedia which use to be found at List of countries, going to the talk page of that redirect and following the debate through the archives will show the same sorts of arguments coming up then. In the end it was agreed that List of countries would become a redirect to the List of sovereign states page that already existed. I think that was the first place i got involved in this "list" dispute at shortly after arriving on wikipedia. Since that redirect the sovereign state list has been very stable relating to the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland issues. So dealing with the title certainly does help create stability although as i pointed out in my previous paragraph, i do not think there is a need to rename every article title, as richardeast admitted, a title can say country without it having to include every country like Wales.

I am not against compromise (i accepted a compromise originally until other editors raised concerns i expected would come up) but a compromise has to be for the right reasons. At present the argument is the title says country there for it must include everything that any reliable source has described as a country. I can not accept that reasoning because of the impact it would have on more than 50 country lists which have to be taken into account and not ignored. I am prepared to support some form of mediation where all the editors involved in this dispute can try and hammer out an agreement, which would include acceptance of EWSNI on certain lists (including the one we are debating now), on the condition that there is acceptance by other editors that these do not belong in the vast majority of lists of countries on wikipedia. But that is not possible when the argument is based simply on the title of the list.

If some form of mediation like that is not going to be possible. Then i think we should move ahead with the page move which has support, and would resolve this matter in the same way List of countries has been resolved. I think there are about 6 or 7 lists relating to the European continent one. We should consider a group move to bring those all into line with a title someone suggested along the lines of List of sovereign states and dependent territories in (enter continent here). Whilst on this point, i would also like to remind people this is basically a sub list to the primary list found at List of countries by continent. That list has a very clear introduction which defines what is and is not included well. Trying to keep all such lists in line with each other has always been one of my concerns when it comes to country lists. It is complicated and confusing to have many different policies and methods across all the lists. One other point which i should mention. Some suggest we should take this out of our own hands all together, if we followed an international standard like ISO 3166-1, this is something i would support as it is then up to internationally recognised bodies and not a few editors picking and choosing what can and can not be included and can easily be explained in the introduction.

Anyway that will do for now, sorry my post is a little long but i wanted to include all of the main points. (one final point sorry, we should not forget that this list has existed for a couple of years, it has been fairly stable until this dispute about them being included came up. Nothing has changed between 2008 and 2010. The list was not inaccurate in the past because it did not list England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and it is not incorrect now. The fact it has only been raised recently highlights most people are not shocked that these nations are not on such a list of countries.) sorry again for the long post and the several edits/corrections BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input everyone. I'll do  some background checks and follow up on  your links and leads over the next  couple of days. I think I'm probably  going to be making  a suggestion  for a compromise solution, and if you still  feel it needs a broader consensus  I'll   suggest  a suitable neutral  motion for an RFC, but let's wait and see. I'll leave a message on your article's talk  page when I'm ready.--Kudpung (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion now over, consensus has been reached on an article move
I would like to thank you for the help you provided, which was not only voluntary and helpful but also surprisingly lucid and something you have obviously spent a lot of time on. Whether you were "right" or "wrong", you did put a lot of effort into it, a great amount in fact, to the point of creating subpages to explain your point, and always trying to address every point given.

This no doubt does not represent all that you deserve, but a token of my, and I'm sure everyone else's, appreciation. Thank you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeating
Sorry Kudpung but I advise you shouldn't repeat a speedy deletion warning on one's talk page if you see it has already been given.As you did on Campion500's talk page. I hope you understand, thanks. Well I had a query, how can I create tables? I'll be grateful to you if you do help. Regards, --Sainsf&lt;^&gt; (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I  don't  know what  you  are talking  about.  You  must  put  a link to  the problem  page if you  complain  or want  some help.-Kudpung (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Spacio2
Hi. A final warning is really too WP:BITEy for a newbie, even if he has put in a blatant advertisement - we do not do enough to explain in advance to new editors that WP is not a notice-board for ads, and a first spam entry, before any warnings, can't be considered vandalism. The G11 speedy notice, maybe plus uw-coi, is enough. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a newbie - a salaried spammer.--Kudpung (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?
This whole RfA process has become such a humiliating circus...
 * A perplexing assessment from someone who opposes based on edits over three years old. Sorry, but it's exactly that kind of oppose that makes RfA "such a humiliating circus". Frank  |  talk  22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is,  isn't it? I've fully  addreseed the reasons for referring  to  the older creations, and as you  saw, my  response is well in  order and perfectly  civil. I  would doubtless feel  very  humiliated if my  RfA were to  be tried by  editors who  possibly  lack  maturity or who  don't  appreciate how serious the discussion  on  becoming  an admin  is. Those,  and the regular silly,  so  called additional 'optional' questions, are some of the reasons why  mature, serious editors won't  come forward for punishment. It's tough perhaps on the innocent lambs that  offer themselves to  the slaughter, but  they  should maybe take some advice from  their peers before running  for election  when they  are clearly  not  ready  for it - the facilities exist  for coaching  and mentoring. There's nothing  I  can  do  about  that. What  I  can, and am  doing  with my  participation on  RfA, which BTW takes about  30 minutes per candidate, is to  help  ensure that  only  editors of the right  calibre are promoted. My  main  criteria for that  are maturity, experience, civility, and availability (not  necessarily  in  that  order). Personally, I  don't  think  we need this process at  all, and I  believe that  something  as important  as adminship  should be conferred by  a committee of very  good sysops, such  as  arbs, crats, and overseers, and in  camera - I don't  even think  it's sufficient  for one crat  alone to  close an RfA. I've been partly  instrumental  in  the past  in getting  important  new policy past  the starting  post  and I  know how difficult  it  can be   to  change policy or to  introduce new ones. There is an on-going  discussion, which  seems to  start  all  over and repeat  itself every  three months or so - but  maybe one day it will  succeed in  launching  an RfC that  will  achieve consensus for one of the better ideas. I  also  kinow only  too  well  how difficult  it  is to  challenge an admin who  is misbehaving, and other discussions on  that  page  inculde examining  the possibilities of making  it  easier to deal  with  sysops who  step  out  of  line. Some of those admins are the reason not  only  why  others do  not  wish  to  suffer the slings and arrows of RfA, but  why  some even give up  their good work  on  the Wikipedia because they  are fed up  with  the abuse and injustice. As I  suggested  to  Esteffect, if you  have time, and if you  would like to  help  develop some of these ideas for improvement  you  might  like to join  in and help  nudge some of these better suggestions on  the path  to  reality.  -(EoD)- --Kudpung (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to think of you removing the diffs from my comment that showed context for your quote above, as well as your oppose. Nevertheless, it is additionally perplexing that you claim to have "fully addressed" reasons for calling up edits over three years old (as though your pronouncement that there should have been cleanup prior to standing at RfA is some sort of absolute directive). You're absolutely entitled to your opinions, but...they don't seem to square with each other, let alone the community. That sort of oppose is the very essence of "humiliating circus". Don't you see that?
 * Regarding your ideas for changes in the RfA process (or others), they are certainly welcome; I agree discussion is good. I don't necessarily agree there's a problem waiting to be solved, as you've no doubt seen at WT:RFA, but...disagreement is OK too. Still and all...to opine so thinly against a candidate because of three-year-old edits isn't really helpful for the project, in my opinion. Frank  |  talk  03:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not  sure what  to  think  of  editors who  fake their RfA votes/comments or heap  exaggerated praise on  candidates who  are clearly  not  ready  for office.. I  don't  need the diffs -  I  can  remember what  I  wrote.You  are quite correct, everyone is entitled to  their vote and/or their opinion  as long  as the voting  process still  exists. I  fail  to  see your reasons for singling  me out  when there are hundreds of really  immature and uncommented votes on  AfCs that  would be more deserving  of your criticism. One of the problem  waiting  to  be solved  and which  is under discussion, is what  to  do  about  sysops who  misbehave.  In  fact  I'm not  sure of your motives at  all - perhaps you  are subtly  intimating that  I  retire from  Wikipedia?--Kudpung (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do with that suggestion (that editors fake comments) nor the thinly veiled implication that I'm one of them. I guess I've noted it and I'll move on. As for singling you out, I took note of an RfA where the opposes were overly focused on one or two mistakes rather than the positive work of a candidate who is clearly not only a net positive to the project but will wield the mop appropriately. That's what we need. So once I took note of that RfA, and began my participation in it, I found your comment to be unsupported and asked for support. That's not singling out, that's paying attention. If you think the thing to do about "sysops who misbehave" is to work to make sure nobody else becomes one, that is a problem in itself. But if this candidate is not to your liking, it's unclear to me what candidate would be acceptable, and further unclear how many of them yet exist...especially ones who would run given the sorts of opposes that crop up, such as your 3+ year-old diffs. Who doesn't have mistakes in their wiki-past? Frank  |  talk  11:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question. and we'll see if you  don't  vote with  a vengance on  my  RfA; maybe you  should calculate your own record, (I have the diffs)  and take an accurate look  at  mine. I wouldn't  expect  you  to  vote favourably  for one instant on  my RfA, but  maybe you  should at  least  take as much  trouble to see how  how I  usually  vote as you  do  to  attack  voters who  don't  vote the way  you  want. I am  NOT  going  to  have my  RfA votes attacked in  this immature and snoddy manner  by  YOU because you  have some personal ax to  grind. and can hide behind the 'shield' of your admpinship. Now please for the second time stope this now and stay  off my  talk  page,  because there are plenty  of skeletons in  your cupboard.--Kudpung (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I will "stay off" your talk page, except to let you know that if you have any problem with my admin behavior ("skeletons", as you call them), please feel free to bring them up anywhere. I recommend my talk page first, but if you don't feel free to address me directly on such matters, I highly encourage you to go to WP:ANI, WP:DR, or WP:RFC. I've never hidden behind any shield; it's not my way, and a check of my activity will show that. Sorry if you feel that my questioning you warrants such a strong response and a search for "skeletons"; that's not my intention (and I haven't searched your past edits) but if those "skeletons" are real, I strongly encourage you to reveal them. We don't need people who abuse the system; if there is legitimate evidence that I'm one of "that sort", then I'd be fine with finding that out sooner rather than later. And, as I re-read this, I'd say if you have any problem with any of my activity - admin or otherwise - feel free to call me on it. (I will monitor for a response here - I realize you might have more to say - but I will not continue this thread unless you expressly signal it's OK to do so.) Frank  |  talk  13:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dzungarian Gate
Hello Kudpung, you mediated an editorial dispute on 23 July 2010. I included kilometres in the above article, it was reverted twice to remove kilometres. You also added kilometres in the first paragraph after 3000 miles, both you and I have had these edits reverted to exclude the kilometres. Is there anything that can be done about this? Metricmike (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have we? I didn't know that. It  sound like a case of WP:TE. I'll  investigate and get  back  to  you  on it,  and  if it  persists you  can take it  to  ANI,  Just  making  polite requests doesn't  usually  bear fruit  in  cases like these.--Kudpung (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've left a message  HERE. Could you  also  run  some checks on  MOS? -  there's a faint  chance he might  be right  after all.--Kudpung (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your question on my talk page given my hard-drive's crashing and someone else leaving another message after yours, to which I skipped directly.

I really don't know how to make my opinion any clearer on this matter. Metricmike's issues amount to an obsession, for which simply see his name, and his endless ranting about how Americans need to do this that and the other thing. WP is not a place for him to battle out his personal demons. The article in question has a metric conversion given for every single actual measurement in it. The sole "exception" being a verbatim quote by an explorer who uses the turn of phrase " the "one and only gateway in the mountain-wall which stretches from Manchuria to Afghanistan, over a distance of three thousand miles." Note, this is a verbatim quote, and the original author does not say "3,000 mi." He is not making a measurement of any actual distance.  Given that this distance simply indicates "a very long way" it is beyond the wrong to "convert" it into some number in kilometers.  To what in reality would such a number refer?  Rather, the number in kilometers is given in a footnote (a compromise I find silly, but am quite willing to make) and the word mile is linked to the article for mile for those who wish to look up what a mile is.  Converting the number to kilometers in the article without comment would amount to implying the existence of some actual measurement which does not really exist.

I truly resent Metricmike's bizarre imputations about my motives here. He acts as if I have some sort of campaign against metric measurements - which of course, he, in his obsession, can see as the only possible reason for resisting his edits. Besides attributing to me all sorts of motives which I do not have, (look at the article Geography of New Caledonia which I wrote to see how obsessed I am about excluding metric measurements) he is emotionally incapable of editing objectively. Indeed, his last edit on the article was to add the bare sentence fragment "About 5000 km." (!) Is this issue so important that proper English style doesn't even matter. (Note also the inherent illogic in his arguments. He keeps repeating, for example, that the word mile has three different legal definitions in the US.  If so, on what basis does he pretend to know which of the three definitions should be used for his conversion?  Is he chanelling the dead author?)  The fact that he goes on about his nieces and nephews and his various world experiences and his opinion of Americans and there backwardness make it quite obvious that his motives are quite beyond NPOV. This amounts to slow motion incivility and harassment.

I will continue to resist providing a conversion for this number in the lead of the text. The link and the footnote both adequately explain the matter for those who may be confused. Adding a conversion amounts to misleading the reader into believing they have some accurate knowledge of what is not a fact, but a turn of phrase. Do we need, for example, to translate Robert Frost's the following lines from Robert Frost's Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening:

And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep.

to:

And miles (multiples of 1.609km) to go before I sleep, / And miles (multiples of 1.609km) to go before I sleep.

?

Truly, this is an idee fixe. Metricmike needs to examine hiss motives and behaviour and move on to more productive matters. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Another reply Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Etiwanda Colony
Kudpung how do you know that Etiwanda Colony had an article in the newspaper and had a TV documentary! I'm not getting mad. I just want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommoo (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but...
Can you tell me how I can deal with this? I guess that makes it an official accusation, although I haven't been notified of any debates occurring somewhere in the admin areas. Is there something I should do in this case to launch a defense, or wait for notification of an investigation? Sorry for bothering you, but you seem like you know wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A sockpuppet is someone  who  uses different  names or an IP login  to  make it  look  as if it  is different  people posting. This is one of the worst  offenses on  Wikipedia,  although  it  can happen  very  easily and innocently  if you  posted and had forgotten  to  log  in,  or your connection  timed out  while you  were editing  your post  and you  had been loged out  by  the time you  pressed 'save'. Some people are very  quick  to  raise such  objecrions without  considering  first  whether it  was done in  innocence. I  would suggest  you  go  to   WP:SPI, check  the logs and see who  filed the complaint. Otherwise if  you  know you  have never made a post  without  logging  in, ignore it.  If you did, it  would be in  your interest  to  explain  how it  came about. Keep  me updated.--Kudpung (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC) PS: If  you don't know, simply  try  to  remember where you  have been positng, check  back  over the page histories to  see if you  left  an edit  under your IP  address.


 * Dear Kudpung. The editor who initially created this message is very likely a sockpuppet just trying to "play the system" again. This case is 5 years old, with the same user returning with new accounts and anonymous IPs. As an experienced administrator you are probably well aware of the signs such as edit pattern, POV being introduced and style. Please see my talk page for a lengthy record of evidence, aswell as admin. EdJonhston talk page, where the evidence is being gathered.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  06:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well no, I'm not some previous user in a new account, and let me point out that Alex's evidence is haphazard and vague at best. The only definitive POV he seems to have from me is when I copyedited a previous inclusion by the IP, he instantly jumped to the conclusion that the IP and I were the same (I think? The communication was poor). As for the turkey evidence, I placed it in Europe, which is apparently opposite the POV of corticopia. For Cyprus, I simply copied a note already on cyprus to northern cyprus. I've never edited Georgia (country) though I must admit after visiting it, I have the desire to purge the pictures on it.
 * Also, I can't find an official complaint about me, except for the talkpage of the admin he stated. If he could link me to one, that'd be good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, I hope your saying that I am an admin is not an asteism ;) and that  I must  make it  perfectly  clear that  I  am not, and never have been. It might be a misconception due to some of the advice I frequently give and my contributions to making Wikipedia policy
 * The term 'very likely' sounds rather like an accusation. However, please bear in mind that while I am flattered when editors seek my advice, suspected serious violations of policy that have already been reported will run their course on their notice boards, and my talk page is unfortunately not the place to seek resolution.--Kudpung (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to put it on your talkpage, just wasn't sure what to do. Additionally, I don't think it has run its course on the notice boards, at least, I haven't been notified of it. Don't worry, won't try to resolve it here. Thanks for the time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to  apologise. I  think  what  I  was trying  to  say  was that in  spite of my  all-round experience here, there are some people who  are really  specialised in  the SPI  domain, and that's why  we have a dedicated department  for it. I've had a brief look though, and analogous editing can  be a very    real  thing. and it's not  a crime at  all.  I  often use snippets of other people's terminology  myself. It's perfectly  acceptable. The evidence seems rather circumstantial, like looking for  a crime to  fit  the evidence. But  that's only  my  first opinion, and unless I'm  mistaken, the admins don't  seem  to  be taking  much  real  interest  in  the case.-Kudpung (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Age
My views on age would be that there should be a minimum (you may have been alluding to mine in 2005 on my talk page, and ironically, I would now probably oppose a 15 year old administrative candidate - at that time, there were 14 year old administrators, though), perhaps even for legal reasons. Some individuals, however, mistake age for maturity, which is a definite problem - We have editors in their thirties whom could be mistaken for an adolescent. Age as a whole, therefore, is a tricky conundrum - I would say 16, others would say 18, and others would say 21. Esteffect (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well at least we agree one hundred percent  on  that, and  of course I  was alluding to  your RfA ;)
 * Whilst however it is highly  unlikely  that  anyone much  under 18 can rub shoulders with  the wisdom  and experience of some of our professors, college deans, and Nobel laureates, an increase in  age is certainly  not  always analogous with  an increase in  maturity. Not only  do we have editors in their thirties whom we could mistake for  adolescenst, we have some admins in  their forties with  the same psychological  problem.- I  think  the AOM should definitely  be the threshold - perhap^s even for editors (if you've ever done a tour on  NPP...) -Kudpung (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a difficult issue. Even if I would not vote for myself as an administrator at the age of 15, I would not say that - when I was - I was a bad editor, having as I did as featured article and a variety of contributions at the time. I was undoubtedly in a minority, though, and I doubt that anyone would have suspected as to my adolescence at that time had I not revealed it recently. I don't think blanket banning on certain age groups would, therefore, be a good idea, although I do agree that they shouldn't be able to perform certain tasks (as they cannot, for example with WP:OTRS. I'd be interested to know whom our youngest administrator now is. Esteffect (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are always exceptions, and if I had been 15 and not  50 when the Wikipedia began, I  would have stood a very  good chance at  passing  an RfA.Tthe irony  is that  if I  were to  run  for office today, I  would certainly  fail because of my  age. I think  that  if any  voter on  an RfA has any  doubt  as to  age and/or maturity, one Optional Additional Question (most  of them are stupid and posed by  children) that  would be perfectly  legitimate is How old are you? or at  least  Are you  over the AOM? --Kudpung (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable question to ask, although a voter shouldn't have to give specific personal information if they don't want to. Therefore, I'd only recommend the second question. I'm also not sure why being 50+ would be a valid reason to oppose adminship. Esteffect (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The children than run this project account for anything up  to  35 - 40% of the RfA !votes, and they  have an absolute aversion  to anyone who  is old enough  to  be their grandfather,  and they  bear grudges...  --Kudpung (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't remember ever seeing an oppose at RFA because someone was too old, lots of opposes for "maturity" and other coded or uncoded allusions to youth, but in two years of watching RFA I can't remember an oppose for over maturity. Technically I am old enough to be the grandfather of some of our youngest RFA candidates, but I didn't have any opposes on grounds of age at my second RFA, or from anyone I suspect of youth.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Advise
Could you (as an experienced editor) tell me where to go to propose changing an article into a redirect (or deleting it?). Maritime Southeast Asia seems to be a WP:FORK for the Malay archipelago. Additionally, could you tell me somewhere else to address my problems, so I can stop bothering you? Thanks Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind you asking - whether you get advice here or on EAR it comes to the same thing. There are no forks here, a fork is something else entirely - its a site that copies or 'mirrors' Wikipedia content - usually  illegally by not providing an attribution. What  you  have done is to include material from Maritime SE Asia in Malay Archip. No harm in that. However, the intervention is WP:MERGE, and the process follows a set procedure that involves tagging  the article, and starting a  discussion. If you  don't  get  any  response after, say, 7-10 days, then strictly speaking  you  could be WP:BOLD and go ahead and do it. WP:MM gives precise instructions.  You've already moved the text content, but you'll still need to go through the motions, and do the physical steps to avoid losing any  peripheral content. As a courtesy, you should consider notifying the smaller article's creator or major editor(s) of your intended move.--Kudpung (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoops, sorry. Meant Content forking. I copied the information over as it was entirely relevant, and I see that information as fairly uncontentious, especially as it is sourced. WP:MM states that I can be bold and perform it, which I have done, now I think the Maritime article should either become a redirect or deleted. It really means the same thing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have followed the instructions for merging to  the letter, it  will  have become a redirecte. Always go  over it  again  and check that  it  all has the desired effect  though. And don't  worry  if you  made a mistake somwhere, it  can always be undone - nothing  is actually  deleted from  the server, only  from  view.--Kudpung (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the instructions, and did what could be done of a full cut and paste. I mean, the article was a stub, with only a 2 line paragraph of information, which I transferred. The rest was just an intro which is a shorter version of the Malay Archipelago one. Thanks, will make a redirect. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverted, and subsequent conversation with reverter went absolutely nowhere. . Any advice as to what I should do next? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, find another area of Wikipedia to work on  that  is less controversial ;) Seriously  though, I  would just  drop  this issue and walk  away  from it. Neither article gets  a lot of hits, and it  would be better all  round if editors could use their keyboard skills to  expand articles instead of arguing  the toss and turning  the talk  page into  a soap opera (like they  do  oon  the European countries page). The Malay Arch. piece is 90% incivility -`not  the best  way  to  build an encyclopedia.--Kudpung (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, I have a list of articles I want to work on. I'll be back though, I'll be back! Thanks for the advise again! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

re: GOCE newsletters
I know you've made the suggestion before, and I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see why we would need to send the newsletter in a collapsible form. The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 13:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought  I  hadtmentioned that  the reason  was because when I  did the same thing  from  my  Wikiproject, a dozen editors came down on  me like a ton o f bricks,  and I  can now see why. Never mind, if  it's to  complicated, leave it.--Kudpung (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was too complicated. I'll think about it. The Raptor  You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 13:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Malvern College
Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your comment. I'll have a look sometime between now and the next couple of days, if that's okay.

My current contributions are essentially derivative of my library culling exercise, as I work through books, articles, old correspondence, etc, and check Wikipedia for areas where I can utilise them, follow-up on them, or facilitate others utilising them. For example, my contributions on Sir Albert Howard, Sir Robert McCarrison arose from me finding old correspondence from the days when I was searching for various books in pre-internet days (one of which I found - Albert Howard's An Agricultural Testament). Where I sought one or two books, I now find a smorgasbord of information, and oftentimes an undeveloped article.

On the minor edits, it was deliberate on my part. Although the visible contribution from each individual edit often belies the amount of effort taken to find the material and incorporate it, I have thought of each edit as being minor, even though collectively they transform an article. Is my rationale erroneous? Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I miss my library. There was no  way  I  bring  it  to  Thailand. It  would have needed a complete 20 ft  container. A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, punctuation, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits. I've been dabbling  more in  the maintenance and managemlent  side of the Wikipedia lately,  just  for a change. I  needed it  after doing  a mammoth translation  from  French  of Brontë.--Kudpung (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen v Players 2010 match / Chance to Shine
I have posted about and his new articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Feel free to pitch in there or on the talk pages of the articles.

In short, I agree that Gentlemen v Players 2010 match is not notable, but I think Chance to Shine is. Crinfo's version was deleted just before I was able to save an expanded version; I have added some sources. -- Testing times (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. There is no comparison (I did not tag Chance to Shine), and I don't think the current version is in any danger of extinction. Gentlemen v Players, however, is an article about one match. There is no reason to doubt that Crinfo wrote it in GF, but doesn't yet know about our policies. I'm sure you guys over at the cricket project will be able to help him out.--Kudpung (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we agree :) Sorry for the mistake in not spotting that someone else tagged the other article - I'll go over to User talk:Timneu22 now. -- Testing times (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I actually try  to  save articles where I  can, but  that  doesn't  prevent  me from  recommending deleting  a few too. Unless I  have subject  knowledge I  tend to  steer clear of things, and that  unfortunately  includes cricket ;) --Kudpung (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Hello Kudpung, thank you for your note. I am always interested to learn new things. I am aware of the BLPPROD tag, however in the cases of the group of articles I submitted to AfD yesterday, they were all too old to be templated as such. Before I submit items to AfD, I almost always perform a cursory search of Google News Archive. This is much better than simple Google News, as it contains many more sources and articles, sometimes even going back 100 years. In the case of the articles I submitted, I was not able to find anything to constitute "significant coverage", and in some cases absolutely nothing at all could be found. I did learn at one of the AfDs that WP:CREATIVE allows for articles of authors if they have written a highly notable book (for example a New York Times bestseller). I learn something new every day and thank kind people such as yourself and Akerans for pointing me in the right direction. Best wishes! Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I also realised after I left you the message that they were too old for the new BLPPROD. I just prefer not to send articles to AfD if possible because particularly with non notables, nobody is interested enough to vote and although they  should be deleted they get kept by default for lack of consensus. Keep up the good work. Take care :) --Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam
Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I have to ask, though - why does your talk-page header greet me as "JamesBWatson"? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see...it goes by whoever comments last. Never mind then...Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Bronte
Hi, just read your message as I have been away. I will try to do some more on the article but I had got to a point where I was a bit confused which is easily done. I'll read through it later.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Football Unites, Racism Divides
I will get more references inserted as soon as is convenient. And there is no danger of it not meeting notability requirements, but I understand that that might not become evident until a few more links are thrown in. Because of a heavy workload that might not be right away, but certainly very soon. Rckd (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. 'Very soon' might  not  be good enough  for some of our other New Article Patrollers. You  may  wish  to  take advantage of composing  your articles in  your user  space  and posting  them  to  the new article page when they  are complete and less likely  to  be deleted. If you  need more help  or information  about doing  this, don't  hesitate to ,ask  me.--Kudpung (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably if the page was to get taken down, there wouldn't be a problem re-uploading it once the relevant links are in? There are a handful of citations but whether or not it is good enough for the Patrollers is out of my hands, unfortunately.  Simply put I can't get anything changed today - I have created this page in the scrap of free time which I have found myself with and I have some more pressing things to address presently.  So I will leave that with you.  Thanks.  Rckd (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I suggested, you  might  wish  to  park  a copy  of it  in  your user sandbox in  case it  gets deleted from  article space. Copying  and pasting  doesn't  take two  minutes. getting  it  revived if it  has been already  deleted is a slightly  more complicated process.--Kudpung (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is already in my userspace - I copied/pasted it from there when I posted it 'live' so I've still got it backed up, if it was deemed worthy of deletion.  Thanks for the advice.  Rckd (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Wotnow (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rights of Englishmen
Thanks for this. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. We could really use you as an Admin. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're welcome :) The ES got truncated by the site softw. It should have read: Not an error or a typo. It's an old English spelling qualified by the editor's additiion of '(sic)' in th text. The letter f was used by printers in those days for an s. --Kudpung (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Admin? Nice of you to say so. I know I contrib a lot to the RfAs and the discussions on improvement, and work on other policy projects, and clean up tasks, but I'm not sure I want to venture into that snake pit  just  yet ;) If you really think it's worth a nom without  wasting everyone's time, let  me know after you have done some background checks.--Kudpung (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'd support you for a start. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You know there's a guy  on  the Wikimedia drive for improving Wikipedia adminship  who rather vehemently thinks nobody  over 49 should be allowed to  edit, let  alone be an admin? Golly, where does that put  me? --Kudpung (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Gerhard Vogel
Hi, creepy little personalized message thingy when you edit your page :) ....

Anyway, I've just left a note at WikiProject LGBT studies asking for help with this article. I'm going to remove the PROD tag for now to see if we can fix it.

Thanks -- Exploding Boy (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want  you  to  think  I'm stalking  you, but  I  usually  check and see who  is recommending  articles for AfD. I'm on a campaign to  improve BLP and RfA policies among  other things, so  I'm on a bit of a witch hunt  for child admins and fly-by  taggers. You're not  in either category, but one link  leads to  another - that's the built in evil with  hypertext ;)  --Kudpung (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yikes, I didn't think that... until you mentioned it... Anyway, the article definitely needs improving.  If it has to go I'd rather see it go by AfD than simply PRODing, though.  Let's see if the WikiProject LBGT people can help first.  Exploding Boy (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, one advantage of PROD is that  they  only  get  deleted if nobody  takes any notice of them. That's why  TW automatically  puts a warning  on  the creator's page (if he's still around, (and a lot  of BLP  SUAs aren't), whereas you've got  a lot  less control  over what  the community  thinks of your work  on  an AfD, where even the admins often wrap  them  up  subjectively. They  must  of  course default to  keep if nobody votes much,  but  it's a bit  risky. There's been a lot  of progress on  biography  policy  this year, I was wondering  if you  were up to  date with  it. Some of it  was very  difficult to  follow, but  we got  there in  the end.--Kudpung (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: There's a huge drive to clean  up  and/or delete a massive backlog of unsourced and poorly  sourced BLPs this year, perhaps you  should have a quick check  through  your other creations in  case you  risk  losing  them. I'd help, but  your topics don't  seem  to  be much  in  my  line, unless you  want  help  in  translating  some German  sources.--Kudpung (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale query
Did you intend this. You reverted WM5200 blanking all his content, then you reverted Someguy putting it all back, with the net effect that all WM5200's contribs are missing, and the section now looks like listening in on a phone conversation. I don't want to change it again myself, as I don't know what you intended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did, because actually,  that's pretty  much  what it looked like anyway when I got to it. There was oly  one half of the conversation  left. They  had been doing such an edit war that  I  may have  got  lost  trying  to  reconstitute everything as it was before they started warring. If  you can  piece it  all  back  together, I  would be most  grateful if you  could., but  it probably won't  make much  difference. --Kudpung (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think Jehotzwells summed the situation up fairly. The OP has deleted their own comments, the matter can be considered closed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... unless they have been on  another deletion  spree, I  thought  I  had closed that by  telling them to  take their bickering  elsewhere. No  matter -  thanks for looking  into  it.--Kudpung (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank, and apologize to, both Jehotzwells and Kudpung. I thought (think) that I was poorly served by my administrator, and tried to get help here, instead I created useless conflict. When I tried to retreat, someone brought my stuff back, don't blame them, I re-deleted it. I would prefer the entire section to be gone, but have trouble deleting anyone's words but my own. Yes, I did go on another (continued the same) deletion spree, some stuck, some didn't. I only tried to contribute, but clearly have problems in your world. I do not mean to pick fights, but do think some kind of review or change of venue might have been helpful. Again, sorry for the conflict.Wm5200 (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Four glasses puzzle
"Unremarkable game. Only reference is a blog" - "Unremarkable game" is very much a subjective view - are you qualified to make such a judgement? Why not try finding an 'authoritative' reference rather than tagging the article for deletion? Androstachys (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When you have a bit  more experience. I  might  be a bit  more tolerant of your WP:PA and WP:NICE.  You  may  also  wish  to  check  out WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V If you  need help  understanding  these principles, please don't  hesitate to  ask ;) --Kudpung (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You may notice that I had replaced the reference which you objected to with one which might be more to your liking. Androstachys (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid it's not. Do  please read up  on  the strict  policy  we employ  here for inclusion. I  have given you  the links above including  the ones about  how to  communicate with  other editors, and here are some more on  inclusion. WP:FAILN, and WP:UNRS, WP:IINFO. It's a lot  of bureaucracy and takes some understanding, so if you  want  some help, don't  hesitate to  ask, but  please do  it  nicely.--Kudpung (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bhavna Pani deletion
Sir, You may delete the page as I was not able to find any reliable sources. Maybe, I can find some sources some other time. For the time being, I guess its okay to delete the page. Thanks for informing me. --Novice7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novice7 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for awarding me with the Working Man's barnstar, I really appreciate it. Do you mind sighning my quest book? ~  Nascar  1996   13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mavelikara Krishnan Kutty Nair
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mavelikara Krishnan Kutty Nair, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Padmashri is a credible assertion of notability, two of the refs (although in passing) seem to attest to notability. Thank you. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine - with  your background you  are far more qualified to  judge an article of this kind :)  Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)