User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug 2009

Unsourced material
Thankyou for Informing me,Can you give me a link to the page which allows Writing sourceless material in articles --Notedgrant (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many editors  find  this one, and this one very  helpful.--Kudpung (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * thankyou i'll try to avoid mistakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notedgrant (talk • contribs) 02:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV
Thank you for your report, however, the IP you reported has not committed enough vandalism for us to know if he is not becoming a reformed vandal. I'd like to notify you of this discussion, which I've transcluded below.
 * - On Feckenham;. Evidently a vandalism-only account. Kudpung (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It last edited two days ago. Also, it's an IP, not an account. -- Menti  fisto  12:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The vandal hasn't edited in two days and also, the IP only vandalized three times, while five is usually the blocking amount. I removed your post to reduce clutter from future reports. Thank you,  ceran  thor 12:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay, and enthusiasm is much better than none at all. :)  ceran  thor 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a whole different venue, if you think that they are being used by the same user, this is the proper place to report it.  ceran  thor 13:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pattaya
Thank you for your work on Pattaya. I have lived there much of the time for 16 years, and am fairly new to Wikipedia. I agree with you that edits should be restricted some way. So many articles are totally lacking in correct substance, and need cleaning up. I write for magazines, and for Bangkok Post and Nation--Thailand's English newspapers, and will help here as I have time. Best of luck. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mostly everyone who contributes to  the Pattaya article, including  the native Thai speakers, does so  in  good faith, but  they   do  not always  differentiate the special constraints of writing for an encyclopedia, from the tone and content on  their local Internet  forums or badly  written tourism  flyers - which  most  of them  are used to. Writing in the dry, almost  boring tones of an encyclopedia does not come easy to those who  have little practice in  writing  academic papers or factual  journalism. As long  as the content is fairly reasonable however, and not  direct  vandalism,  editors who  write for leading  newspapers or who  are published authors, don't  really  mind digging  in  and cleaning  the mess up. Thank you  for your kind support, and do  not  hesitate for an instant to let  me know if any  of my  edits have been inacurate or overzealous.--Kudpung (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

LeonigMig

 * Hi. Thanks for the tag thing. I contributed to Wikipedia quite a bit about the local history of North Worcestershire when I was looking for a job after graduating. So I went to the local libraries, ordered books out of the archives, photocopied out of copyright stuff and scanned it in- synthesised whole articles. I loved it (then I got a job lol). I'm one of those people who finds it natural to emulate styles of writing and some of the stuff I wrote was a little bit flowery, in the mode of some of the Victorian and turn of the century local history books- you know the kind of thing- fanciful suggestions and turns of phrase etc. It has its charm. Basically I'm not interesting in contributing to Wikipedia as a certain editor was a bit of a you know what and stamped on me repeatedly rather than being civil. The guy involved is a member of your group and was banned twice for over a year becuase of the way he behaved. I've now moved to another part of the county and am actively researching the local history of that area for my own benefit. However I will not be contributing to your project as I don't want to experience all that conflict all over again- "rm personal attack" etc. Good luck. 20:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi leonigMig. I'm sorry to  hear about your negative experiences. We all get  flak sometimes from unreasonable editors (and sometimes admins), I do  myself although  I  consider myself to  be a very  careful editor, and there have been times I've wanted to  give it  all  up. Looking  back  over your editing  history and your talk  page since 2005, some of the generic edit messages you  received may  have been justified, but  not  of course the abuse. A good thing  to  do if one is going to  do  a lot of regular editing  and contributing to  the encyclopedia, is to  wade through  some of the more important  bureaucracy  and be sure of the basic rules. A bad thing  to  do  is fight  fire with  fire. The Worcestershire project  is new and of course anyone can join it, but  we have it well in  control and won't  allow any  edit warring on the pages we look  after. You'll see that  the work  we do is highly  collaborative in the nicest sense. The project  needs all  the help it can get and we would welcome your contributions. We'll let  you  know you  in  the nicest  way  if they   are not quite right.--Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sussex Downs College
Heya, I know you are good with school and college articles, so I offer you Sussex Downs College, I've just been through it and removed a hell of a lot of crap, most of which seemed to be copied and pasted directly from the prospectus, and wasn't relevant to an encyclopaedia at all, I was wondering if you fancied having a look at it? Jeni ( talk ) 12:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'll have a go, but don't  forget  I'm flying  to  the UK newt  week for a month.--Kudpung (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a first hack at  it - in  fact  you  could have been a lot bolder. I  have left  a comment  on  the talk  page. I would give it  a week  or so to  see if some of the cn tags have been addressed, then start  taking them  out if not. The major contributors have probably added their stuff in  good faith,  but  may  not  be fully aware of Wiki  guidelines.--Kudpung (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wellingborough
I have added 5 refs but they are not that good see what you think, it's the hardist to find refs on the Geology section.Likelife (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Hello, regarding Côtes du Rhône AOC, please refer to Categorization. An article should typically not be categorized in several categories above/below each other in the hierarchy. Tomas e (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

hi
Belated thanks for the welcome message thing. I read your user page.... you seem like a very interesting individual. I hope my life's just as eventful! Cheers (etc) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of hangon tags
Hi - in case you weren't aware, the hangon tag is designed for use where an article is nominated for speedy deletion - i.e. the article is in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The motorway service stations you've tagged are only being nominated for normal deletion (see Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)). Adding the hangon tags incorrectly places the articles into the speedy deletion category. If you believe the articles should be kept, you should leave a keep comment at the debate. I will remove the tags, as they may cause confusion. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 13:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)