User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug 2014

Re:WT:RfA
Hmm. Read your comments. I know RfA is in a better state now. But nowadays the trend for AfD participation is much higher than it was at that time during 2006-2007 when Moonriddengirl etc became admin. Why AfD is so needed?? When some of those 1407 admin haven't ever done administrative works in AfD or CSD areas. No editor is ever perfect, and voters just dig a very simple issue and make huge mountains of it when the editor is running for RfA. When I joined, I have dreamt that I will become an admin someday like Dennis, Drmies, you etc. But now the dream has become a nightmare.  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's only a nightmare if you  are not  sufficiently  prepared and if you  have not  spent  hours reading  up  on  all  the advice -  most  of which  I  wrote and has become the staple reading  diet  for candidates. FWIW, if you,re scared to  run  for adminship, you  should take a look  at  my  own RfA. I  still  passed with  flying colours despite the lies and abuse I  got  from  some admin who  has, thankfully, since been desysoped and the truly  silly  comments of some others. Once you  get  the bit  you're going  to  need an even thicker skin, unless of course you  want  to  work  in  the background just  doing  routine deletes of PRODS as many  do. We  need more admins like me and  and a tiny  handful of others who  are prepared to  stick  their necks out in  contentious and controversial  issues -  someone has to  do  the dirty  work, and if a user can.t face up  to  that  kind of admin work, they  are better staying  in  the nevertheless noble ranks of prolific content  writers and FA reviewers, etc. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I have read almost all of your essays, And yes they all were awesome, thanks for creating them. I have also been following your criteria for admins not because I want to become an admin someday but I think every user wanted to become a good contributor should follow those. I have seen both your and Dennis's RfA. Hmm. I know every successful RfA has some opposes except for Anne Delong's. If I ever become an admin I would like to help on such contentious areas. Thanks,    Jim Carter (from public cyber)  15:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Being an admin doesn't make you a more valuable Wikipedian, nor a better editor or person. If anything, it guarantees you will have less time to just write.  If you aren't prepared to spend a good deal of your time here being a punching bag, adminship isn't right for you. RFA is just the first taste for many candidates.  Really, if you aren't prepared to get your nose bloodied from time to time, and be served up a slice of humble pie on a regular basis, it isn't for you.  When it comes to adding value to Wikipedia, one good writer is worth more than 10 average admin, remember that.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  15:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're correct Dennis. Becoming an admin is not something my aim was nor it is. I have a mixed interest I have created not many but 13+ articles, 3 DYKs, helped improve 1 article to meet GA. Have been a vandal fighter, quite active in AfD, Created templates etc. my contributions are not because I read essays of how to become an admin and have special interest of becoming an admin but want help built encyclopedia. You guys do a great job,, Kudpung. And really you both are precious diamonds of Wikipedia, salute you both. I think becoming a good editor is better than being an admin. But if in future someone ask me to run for adminship, I might say yes. But now I don't have interest nor I'm totally qualified yet. Anyway, I was in vacation. You know real life. Thanks again, both of you. Good day & Happy editing!  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  16:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Precious diamonds, eh? Dunno about  that; rough  diamonds maybe, but  thank you  for the kind words :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I love this song, it should be your theme song Kudpung: Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Image Deletion
Please help me by opening this link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harshita_Gaur_2014-06-16_13-32.jpg and by checking this image.I think that this is copyrighted work and should be removed from Wikipedia.I am not sure so as administrator i asked you for your help.Thanks.--Param Mudgal (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I do not work at Commons. Please contact an admin there. Kudpung.90.216.253.138 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay.. Thanks for the help.Can you suggest the user name of any administrator there?? It will be of great help to me. --Param Mudgal (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

can ask Eleassar. He is an admin there. Cheers,  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  (In absense of Kudpung) 19:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.--Param Mudgal (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone you might like to meet
Hi, did you make it to London or not? I just had a brief conversation with a user I had helped years ago. He mentioned he is in Bangkok. I knew you were in Thailand. Looks like you aren't that close, but checking out your user page, I learned more about your interests. While the list didn't literally include pantomime, I thought it might be close enough for you to have some interest. Beebuk has not just contributed to Wikipedia on the subject, he is a serious scholar of the subject, with at least one book. As you can see, he is a major contributor to Pierrot and related topics. He posted a short note to my talk page; as you can see from his talk page, he and I were collaborating, sort of, about four years ago.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks fore the heads up - I'll be getting  in  touch. Wikimania was hard but  thoroughly  enjoyable work. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Ste ven  D99  20:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at my RfA
Hi Kudpung, I'm posting here as I'm not sure of the propriety of a candidate commenting on their own RfA or participating in the discussion of !votes. I don't understand why you believe I should be responsible for fixing the problems at Rajendra Chaudhary (Rajasthan politician). I am merely the AfC reviewer that passed the draft into mainspace - because it did (and still does) comply with the relevant minimum standard - it has a few mainstream press sources that do support the subject's claim to notability. I did not create the article, nor am I particularly interested in the topic, so why should it count against me if an article I worked on only once some time ago has problems? Given that I am a fairly prolific AfC reviewer there are probably many articles which I accepted into mainspace and now have various maintenance tags - In fact I added those tags myself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Aye, there's the rub: as dedicated as I am to  making  accurate and involved research  before voting  at  RfA even I  can make mistakes. Nevertheless, you got  my  vote changed from  a 'Neutral' leaning  oppose, to  a clear 'support'. Looks like you'll  pass too.  That  said, what  I  and, and a few others are looking  for is to  wrest  the AfC process out the hands of the resident programmers and introduce a completely  new system that  will  make reviewing  much  easier for qualified reviewers, easier to  ensure that  all reviewers are applying  the same criteria, and easier to keep unqualified reviewers away  from  the process. I  did my  bit  in  getting  the new Draft  namespace approved, and again in  getting  some criteria of competency  for reviewers established, now we need some broader help and support to  get the rest  of the improvements done. We need that doing  fast  because others are campaigning  now for a complete disbandment  of the AfC system and unloading  it  onto  NPP  which  has enough  problems of its own. Perhaps  can exert some influence too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I get the feeling that only a liberal application of high explosives would really fix AFC. I'm afraid we missed the ideal opportunity to rebuild it from the ground up when Draft-space came online. Back to the Inquisition I go to be further racked and grilled about my "poor showing" at AFD! (I wonder why AFD in particular seems to be regarded as such a critical factor for Adminship?) Cheers and thanks for the support. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * AfD is deemed so critical  to  the RfA process because in  the absence of other concrete metrics it's the one place where we can get  some kind of overview of a candidate's knowledge of policies, and it's the one place where an admin needs to  demonstrate good skills of evaluation  of consensus to  be ablke to  close them -  most admin  work  is concerned with  deletions, undeletions, refunds, etc, while  not  so  much  admin  work actually involves blocking  and remonstrating  with  other users.


 * Back to the use of TNT, I  did some heavy  lobbying  in  the secret chambers of the Wiki senate to  get  the Draft namespace approved and launched as quickly  as possible. My medium to long  term plan in  getting  it  created was to  follow up  with  a proposal  for an entirely  new AfC system built around it, but  the constant  battle between two  goliaths of helper script design for the old system not  only  ignored my  proposal, but  caused me to  back  away  for many  months from  supporting  new ideas for AfC at  all. More recent  lobbying  in  London  with  some of the major movers and shakers of Wikipedia/Wikimedia has encouraged me to renew my  campaign for a new kind of AfC, and in  spite of  being  of a different  opinion  on  your RfA we are in  fact  very good friends and collaborators and have the very  same interests at  heart for both  AfC and NPP. What  we need to  do  now is to get a proper team together, but if I  have anything  to  do  with  it, it  won't  include those mastodons of data manipulation. See WT:Page Curation for an interesting  current  discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting indeed, I think the overall field of page curation/crap filtering/quality control should be more tightly integrated and cooperative. Right now we have people who recommend NPP as good experience for wannabe admins while at the same time pouring scorn on AFC work - when in reality they are fundamentally the same job, just done in different namespaces and apparently by almost entirely distinct populations of editors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The fundamental difference between NPP and AfC are their social  structures and not  really  the actual  work involved. Where AfC does have a core of hard working  individuals who  (whether they  actually  get  along  with  each  other or not) collaborate and maintain  a permanent  dialogue with  one another, it  has a 'home' feel and a sense of project  about it. NPP  has no  social  structure whatsoever, there is absolutely  zero  interaction between patrollers, and attempts over the years  to  bring  them together have all  failed. Namely  becuase the the pool  of patrollers is too  transient, made up  mainly  of newbies who  come there for a bit  of button  mashing  and then move on  when they  get  bored with  it.


 * The ideal solution would be to  merge AfC and NPP, taking  the people who  review articles at  AfC and  the software that runs NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As Kudpung knows, I entirely support him in his approach to this: the fewer routes we have, the better we can watch them. There's a great tendency at WP to invent new procedures, when what is really needed is more careful attention. There is no mechanical or automated solution possible to the real problems with new articles and new users: giving the appropriate individualized advice and attention to people. some routing kinds of garbage can be thrown out without need for comment, but even what appears obvious junk to us, may not appear in that light to the submitter, who is almost always in good faith, however mistaken they may by in what is needed for Wikipedia.
 * There was a critical time early in WP, before either Kudpung or I had joined, when the current structure of dealing with people and article by elaborate templates was invented. It was an well-intentioned attempt to get proper standards of uniform advice and handling of articles, What was lost sight of, is that proper handing and uniform results can not be done in a mechanical fashion. Even if the advice on the mechanised form should happen to be entirely appropriate, the individual needs to know that they are not feeding articles into a machine, but that what they do is being looked at my humans--humans who are there to help build an encyclopedia by a multitude of small personal actions. Even were we capable of devising staandardized procedures that  fully addressed the questions with a particular submission and anticipated the likely objection, and did not confuse with advice and instructions for many other  other possible situations (a precision that is apparently beyond the abilities of anyone here to actually accomplish), still   the necessary impression of personal contact would be lost. That's why the Teahouse works relatively well--regardless of whether the advice given is correct or not, it is almost always clearly and obviously a human being speaking to another human.
 * As a practical way to go forward, I agree that the software behind NPP is considerably better than that for AfC, and this ought to be the structure to build on, to the extent we need structure. The main reason we need some degree of structure is that the Draft space or some equivalent compartment is necessary as a practical matter to deal with work in progress that is not yet ready; but what I have not yet seen is a way of integrating it into a practical workflow.  The key ingredient in a practical workflow is a way of directing new submissions to someone who knows the practices for the particular subject--at present this is mainly done by self-selection, but we do have a possible structure in the WP:Deletion sorting process--the Wikiprojects are a good structure for dealing with the great number of WP articles in a manageable and competent  fashion.
 * Kundpung, you mentioned TNT. A few months ago, I came to the conclusion that the best way of fixing afc is indeed just that. I am continuing to consider the possibility of a MfD on the project pages, with an acceptable compromise being to keep it only long enough to clear out the existing articles, but to enter no more articles into the procedure. We would do better to have no structure at all, than a structure than gets it wrong almost as often as it gets it right.  DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've pinged Anne on this, and then I  think  we should sit  down  and think  things out  with  a view to  proposing  something  concrete. We  need to  find a quiet corner to  do  this until  we are ready with  an RfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think WP:Stub sorting may be a better model for Draft sorting than Deletion sorting - many (if not most) of the Stub categories could probably be directly "transposed" into Draft categories. As for the overall process, I think the RfC should explore merging AFC and NPP into a single operation combining NPP's tools and AFC's collaboration/newbie help system (might as well include the Teahouse in the merge too). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If an AfC reform is going  to  have my  support (and usually  projects that  I  have instigated actually  succeed), an RfC won't  explore anything. The RfC will  propose a well  thought  out, clear cut solution leaving  the community  really  the only  options of either accepting  or rejecting  it. That's why  it's so  important  to  choose a very small  team carefully, know exactly  beforehand what  support will  come from  upstairs for the tweaks to  the site software, and to  find a quiet corner to  prepare everything  without  the usual  background noise from  every  wannebe programmer with  his or her own ideas, or who  is afraid that  the new solution  will  largely  leave them with out  a job to  do -  except  reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I misspoke, "explore" is too wishy-washy - a definitive solution is needed. I think a subpage right here in your userspace might be a suitable "quiet corner". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's usually the place where most  of the successful  RfC proposals are discussed and drafted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since seems determined that I should participate in this discussion, here is my contribution:
 * The only solution that I can envision would have to include enlisting enough willing editors to review about 300 pages per day, plus personally mentor the editors of the ones that could possibly become articles, or fix them up to minimum specs themselves if the editors don't respond. That's about ten times as many editors who are currently working at AfC, by my guess. And, of course, the solution should not expose any of these pages to mainspace unless they have a 50% chance of passing AfD; I'm sure that you'll agree that this is essential.  If we had these editors available, AfC would work fine the way it is.  There is nothing wrong with the software; the process is only problematic because there aren't enough people willing to take on the followup work.  Your solution will have to explain how you are going to attract these mentors.  I can't think of one, so I will be no help at this stage.
 * I am not inclined to participate in a discussion in which only certain editors are welcome. I prefer open discussion over closed/hidden meetings, even if it takes longer.  I had enough of that in my real life job before retirement. I have also had enough of putting time into discussions which are approved, ready to implement, but are never implemented because of lack of participation by technical experts, and I am more inclined to spend my time improving the existing submissions. I will mind my own business unless it appears that this is to be mandated from above somehow without community consensus, as appears to be the plan, starting with off-wiki lobbying, in which case you will find me arrayed with the community.
 * If you come up with something that appears to satisfy #1 and are ready for general input (#2), I will be happy to begin participating at that point. My training in instructional design, logic and user interface construction, as well as the fact that I edit a lot, may make me suitable for a role in testing and debugging your "workflow". &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * , some comments. (1)The articles will have to be reviewed by someone at some point no matter what system we have. If we don;t have enough people to do them all properly, we need some way of directing our efforts where they will do the most good.   (For comparison, at its peak around 2007 or 8, NP was getting almost 2000 articles a day. One third were obvious keeps, one third speedy deletes; that left 600 that  needed consideration--half eventually got deleted. the error rate was about 10 to 20% in both directions) (2)' For an AfC like process, 50% chance is too low.--it will result either in putting all the work into AfD, or making careless keeps that cause problems later.  AfD of 200 or so articles a day beyond what we now have will be a very time consuming process indeed, & a lot of the decisions will be by chance.  (3)' Of course we need open discussion, but it helps to have something concrete to discuss. That can sometimes best be done by a few people somewhere--in the RW, Even when there's a formal discussion committee, it takes a prior well-thought out proposal to get anywhere.   (4)' I do am mainly working trying to deal with the current work, but the few of us cannot keep up, and the only way out is to spend some time in getting a solution. (5) The only practical immediate solution to to train people to assist us, and this will be needed for any procedure we devise  (6)' My personal preferred procedural solution at this point is to divide up the drafts among the wikiprojects.  DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) My point about the needed bodies is that I am extremely skeptical that you'll get enough participation to make any worthwhile improvement. It would be nice to be proved wrong.  Most of the posts I make at Wikiprojects are ignored, and with certain ones I don't even bother trying.  There are nine or ten where there are interested editors, and mostly it's just one or two people in the whole project, so notifying the project is just a roundabout way to notify them.  Instead I expect just another new process that will cause even less reviewing while it's being developed.  (2) My point about the 50% was that it would be ironic if you went with the NPP model, dumping all of the pages into mainspace to be reviewed there, they'd be mostly deleted, problem solved - but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In the current AfC almost nobody aims for 50% anyway. That's partly why we have so many rejections.  (3) Go for it. (4) I agree. Saying is not doing, though. (5) and (6) see point 1. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@DGG, Anne, Very interesting topic - WT:WikiProject Articles for creation - that talks directly to AfC reform/improvement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Grant ideas
Hey Kudpung, it was nice chatting with you at Wikimania, and I hope you got to catch up with at some point during the conference. I wanted to follow-up with you about the grant idea you discussed with me about doing university presentations around Thailand about Wikipedia. I think it's a great idea and something I encourage you explore it when you are able. I recommend checking out Travel & Participation Support Grants (which covers travel, accomodation, and incidental expenses generally for one or a few trips) or an Individual Engagement Grant (which covers the same expenses, but is focused on online impact and could likely cover several trips). You had also said you had a draft of your idea written out in some form; you might consider posting the gist of it on IdeaLab to get some feedback on it, and what grant might be best for you. Feel free to ping me if you have any grant-related questions for Individual Engagement Grants, since I'm in the middle of mine right now! I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Kudpung, just checking in. If you wanted to ask questions about the grants and grant writing process,there are a few meetings hosted by the WMF this month.  I'll be at some of these as well.  Are you considering applying?  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
I didn't review the page. I tagged it. Now I've moved it to the correct title The Soulicious Tour, Live at the O2 as it took place at the The O2 Arena and not the The 02 Arena. I've also prodded it because there is no evidence that a single concert/DVD is notable. By the way contrary to the template I'm not a NPP. I just happened to notice it and saw the editor had used a 0 rather than a O. After reading it, and searching for information, I considered deleting it but decided to tag it instead and give the editor time to fix it. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep off my Talk (again)
I've asked you previously to not post ay my Talk page, I meant it. You recently posted again to do your normal intimidation attempt threat/warning. Are you having memory failure? Stay the fuck off my Talk page, unless as admin you have official business. (You can take "shit or get off the pot" phrase you used on Drmies's Talk and apply it to yourself perhaps. Good luck with your continued overgeneralizations and compulsion to campaign stereotypic wars Eric appropriately called "silly". Your indirect insult re "acolytes" is noted dear guy, you should stop the condescension -- everyone sees thru it but you, you are supposed to have some education under your belt, but your behavior screams someone overdue for retirement. Good luck with your current campaign to "not be so polite" and spread continued ridiculous and unnecessary division and acrimony. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation
I saw you listed yourself as a translator from French. Could you please kindly translate this relatively short article from the French Wikipedia in order to create an equivalent entry here on the English Wikipedia? Thanks! 89.139.184.202 (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking but translating this kind of article is very low priority for me as it's not within  my  sphere of interest. Have you  tried putting it through  Google and then smartening  it  up? Google is fairly accurate when it  comes to  French to  English, but  please don't  put  the raw Google translation  into  mainspace. You'll need to  register an account  too  to  create the article --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will try to ask another translator. 89.139.184.202 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Moulton
Hi,

I see that you were an admin involved in a deletion decision (Seth Moulton: Revision history) in reference to Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Moulton. I wasn't involved in the previous page, and do not know its contents. However, I have created a new draft page on this topic, User:Rustavo/Seth Moulton, which I believe satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, which were the original concerns that led to the deletion. The new draft article is extensively cited, with links to articles in national media, including NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and TIME magazine, local media including the Boston Globe and Boston Magazine (both feature-length pieces on the subject), and an Acadamy Award-nominated documentary in which the subject was extensively interviewed. Please let me know if you agree that it would be appropriate to re-create this page - I have also contacted the original deletion admin through User talk:Tom Morris.

Thanks,

-Rustavo, 1 September 2014

Hi. Please see WP:Talk page to know how to  communicate effectively  through  talk  pages.

According to  our records I  was not  involved in  the deletion discussion of this article. I procedurally  effected a second deletion that did not require discussion. I will  reveiw your draft  and will let  you  have my findings in due course. I have informed. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the draft. These are my findings without  prejudice to  what    may  have to  say.
 * Sources:

Summary: The article contains little or no traditional background (personal data) that is usual for biographies, and misses an infobox:. Moulton may possibly  be notable for something (high level awards for gallantry  during  military  sevice, other high level academic or society  awards?), and this requires further investigation, otherwise it  reads like a typical political  campaign  candidate profile which  is not  the purpose of Wikipedia biographies. It still  fails to  meet most  criteria for WP:POLITICIAN;  while Point #2 of WP:POLITICIAN accepts "significant  press coverage",  I  would like a second opinion as regards Footnote #7. The 'litmus' test we apply  to  moving  user drafts into  mainspace is: would  it  stand at  least  a 50/50 chance of survival  at  WP:AfD? Let's see what  has to  say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Harvard Crimson is based on  interview and/or first  hand report  from  the subject  himself, and not a journalistic research
 * 2) Boston Magazine, reliable source, provides in-depth  coverage
 * 3) No End in Sight is a Wikip[edia article, not  admissible as a source.
 * 4) Boston Globe, reliable source, provides in-depth  coverage
 * 5) npr, recorded talk/interview  by  the subject (primary  source). May  p[rovide some evidence but  does not add to  notability (e.g. YouTube).
 * 6) No End in  Sight is an official  web site for a  documentary film. The website is not  about Moulton.
 * 7) 'MSNBC' reliable source (TV news channel) fleeting mention - little more than a name in  a list. Confirms political candidacy.
 * 8) CNN reliable source (TV news channel) fleeting mention - little more than a name in  a list. Confirms political candidacy.
 * 9) TIME, reliable source, provides in-depth coverage about the subject's political  convictions.


 * Kudpung, thanks for taking the time to look at the draft. As you can see, I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, so I've been refreshing my memory about the guidelines. Some quick points in response:


 * 1) I'm happy to add additional biographical details you think would be appropriate, but a more specific request would be helpful.
 * 2) Notability as a commentator on the Iraq war: I understand that interviews can be considered primary sources rather than (preferred) secondary sources - one might say that an interview with Lt. Moulton is an interview *about* the Iraq war with a soldier who may be *representative*, but not necessarily notable in and of himself. However, the sheer number of NPR interviews (at least 6), over the course of many years, indicate that he was chosen by the producers to fill a particular role as a commentator - he didn't just happen to be the random soldier on the street 6 times in a row. Obviously this is underscored by his playing a similar role in "No End in Sight" - he is very prominently featured, and delivers the final lines of the film. I suspect that his experience as a public speaker, his experience with broadcast media as a military radio host, and his unusual educational biography (from Harvard to the Marines) may explain why he was repeatedly sought out to contribute to these projects, but the exact reasons are unimportant - he clearly became established as a go-to contributor on the topic of the Iraq War for prominent media outlets & a documentarian, which certainly helps establish his notability.
 * 3) The Boston Magazine and Boston Globe articles, as you mention, are in-depth secondary sources, explicitly about the subject, which both discuss his role as a commentator on the Iraq War per the above point. To me this satisfies all the essential criteria of Notability before we even get to his political career (for which I think the Boston Globe article and Time magazine column suffice for point #2 of WP:POLITICIAN, as you suggest). Note that there are additional national press coverage examples I haven't included, such as Joe Klein's previous TIME magazine article about Moulton which he mentions in the referenced column (I think I found it but it's behind a paywall - it also predates Moulton's political career. If you are by any chance a TIME magazine subscriber, feel free to check out http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2089337,00.html and add the citation if appropriate).
 * 4) The third citation is actually a URL link to a pdf on the No End In Sight webpage with brief biographies on members of the cast, including info about Moulton's combat role in Najaf. The little pdf symbol is easy to miss - let me know if there is a better way to format this. The sixth citation (the No End In Sight webpage) could be replaced with any number of movie reviews that mention his role in the film if that would be more appropriate. RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We tend to  accord very  little weight  to  sources that are not  specifically  about  the subject  and/or  only  fleetingly  mentioning him/her, however numerous or otherwise reliable such sources may  be.


 * To avoid this article appearing  to  be a an electoral  support piece, which  its timing  and glowing presentation could lead one to  assume, it  would need to  significantly  play  down the role as a hitherto  unelected political  candidate, and include traditional  biographical data such  as place of birth, date of birth/death, parentage, upbringing/childhood, marriage/partnership, offspring, etc.


 * However, I'm still waiting  for a second opinion  either from   or any  of my  talk  page stalkers who  are highly  knowledgeable about  notability  matters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've continued to revise and update User:Rustavo/Seth Moulton over the past 2 days. There has actually been substantial new press in that time, and I'd added several more references, as well as expanding the election section with a focus on controversies regarding Moulton's political views, which have been covered extensively in reliable, independent secondary sources. I really appreciate your prior review / constructive criticism of the draft, and have made formatting changes and added 'traditional background' info.


 * My feeling is that the article as it stands, clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN (Section 2 as well as 3, which essentially references WP:GNG). You also alluded to some concern regarding WP:PROMOTION due to the timing shortly before the election - this is reasonable, but on the other hand, there has been a substantial increase in reliable secondary source coverage of the subject (including in national press) in the past few weeks due to the proximity of said election, making the case for notability much stronger than it was at the time when the prior pages were created and deleted. I don't think there is anything about the article's tone or content which is propagandistic, biased, or otherwise in violation of WP:NPOV, but feel free to point out specific concerns.


 * Given this, I think it would be appropriate to move the draft page to the main page space in the near future, say by tomorrow evening (EDT). You're obviously much more experienced than I am about the guidelines, but I think that doing this will catalyze contributions from others to both the page content and this discussion (which I would invite you to move to the talk page of Seth Moulton). Please let me know if you don't thing this would be appropriate, although I'd certainly encourage you to also find more voices to join the discussion, given that hasn't weighed in. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You might  as well  move it  to  mainspace and see what  happens. There's absolutely  no  need to  copy  this discussion  to  it's talk  page -  indeed, I  deliberately  kept  the conversation  here so  as not  to  use its talk  page. If anyone tags it  for deletion, which  is possible because some users will  still  have it  on  their watchlists, let  me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really have strong opinions about this. I'd lean towards saying that if the draft page were nominated for deletion, it'd probably be kept now. It seems like it probably squeaks past WP:GNG, and it seems like WP:BLP1E would be satisfied. If you want to move it into mainspace, I'm not really opposed. As Kudpung says, move it on over and see what happens. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tom. I moved the page to mainspace last night, and it has now been nominated for deletion (Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Moulton_(2nd_nomination)). I will refer to this discussion on that page, but please feel free to weigh in. RustavoTalk/Contribs 10:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Secretary of State
All members of the British cabinet are referred to, informally, as Secretary of State, whilst formally holding the title of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for [particular deparment] as outlined by the Interpretation Act 1978, a link to which is here and the specific measure can be found in alphabetical order under 'Secretary of State'. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/schedule/1 James Nilsson-Forrest (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . I Googled for a reference to source an unsourced article. What  I  got  was the government source that  is now in  the article and which  corresponds to  the article's title. Please see, for example, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which  you  have also  edited. If  you  wish  to  change the naming  convention across the encyclopedia for British  ministries, you  are welcome to  start  an RfC -  you  may  even be right. What we need is consistency.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice also  that  with  this edit you  did not source the article - so  easy to do and remove an ugly tag... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)