User talk:Kudpung/Archive Feb 2010

Catching up
Ooh, a blank page, it feels all fresh and clean! Sorry for not replying to various points - I've been trying to catch up on other parts of Wikipedia since the Malvern GA review.

The review: Yes, I think it probably was a little tougher than strictly necessary, but I'd agree that the article is better for it. It makes a good baseline for the rest of the project - it's very useful to have a reference piece, so we can all check 'how does the Malvern article do it?' when editing elsewhere. Some GAs are tougher than others - so long as ours are not unfair, we take what comes.

Thanks for the newsletter - it's a good idea to try to spur a few more editors into action. Maybe when we seriously start work on Worcester that will bring out a few more. For the meetup I won't make any promises, but I'll try to get back to Blighty for it - it would be interesting to put faces to some names.

The Worcester pronunciation debacle was, well, silly. I understand why you don't want to spend your free time doing what you do for a living - in the end it's a minor point, so I guess we live with knowing it's wrong and carry on with other things. We gave it a shot. I do like the myth of a universal English!

Malvern/peacock: I initially had the same thought as you, but Jarry1250 turned out to be a genuine, good-faith editor. He did have a point. I'm happy to keep tweaking the article as needed, although I don't expect any major changes to it. I've noticed your recent spat with the Milford Haven GA review, but decided to stay well out of it ;-) Wikipedia's a big place - don't get drawn into those daft arguments that seem to happen here - spend your effort where it's appreciated.

BTW, I like your user page redesign - I may have to copy some of that. GyroMagician (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:The Fleece, Bretforton.jpg
Hi your post on Stavros1 talk page re above image, I think the deletion tag refers to File:NT Logo.png see previous entry on Stavros1 talk page. Regard --palmiped | Talk  20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist
As I did not get a reply to last note on a watchlist for the Worcestershire project, I took the liberty of proceeding to produce one while I was updating the others. You can check changes to articles tagged with the project template using this link. Keith D (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The major active participants of the Worcs proj have all the related pages on their watchlists, so  if you did not  get  a reply, it can be taken  as a tacit consensus that  your contributions are fine, and very much welcome. Furthermore, thanks for demonstrating the special 'watchall' feature -  I  didn't actually know such a thing existed. Extremely  useful. if you are particularly  interested in the county, have you considered joining  the WikiProject Worcestershire? It  borders some of the counties you already work on and of which some of us are members too. We don't actually have a sysop among the Worcs participants.--Kudpung (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not really available for Worcestershire cannot really spread myself even thinner than I am at the moment. I just thought that I could help with the watchlist as I run several others, usually updated on a Friday, and it is no trouble to add an additional one to the list. Though I did spot some unreverted vandalism when I tested it out. Keith D (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Milford Haven
Hi Kudpung - in one sense, Milford Haven is a local government community (the Welsh equivalent of a civil parish); in another, it's one of the Office for National Statistics urban areas. The two have slightly different boundaries.--Pondle (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes - I  know all  this of course, it's very  confusing and that's why  I  pointed it  out and made the analogy  with  Malvern.It  had even been suggested that  Malvern was not  a place at  all and should be merged to an article about an area of the town that apart from  its name, has no  official  standing. So when I  was in  the UK I  had a meeting with  the town clerk to  clear it all up.  The discussion  was also  a very  good introduction  to  the nomenclature and complexities of the various tiers of regional,  county, borough, district  and local  government,  which  in  fact most  citizens themselves do  not  fully  understand. My  posting  on the Milford GA review talk page gives more detail.--Kudpung (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry I didn't see your post over at the GA page. I must add that to my watchlist.--Pondle (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. Thanks for all your hard work. I haven't added to it myself as I just have nothing more to include. I'll nudge silktork, and have him make a decision one way or the other. Hope to bump into you on future articles. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine Kudpung, the article wasn't a major focus for me either but I wanted to chip in and lend a hand. I may be back if momentum gathers again. Thanks for your input.--Pondle (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Worchester University
Worchester University appears to be one of the all-too-numerous non-legitimate "universities" that use names similar to those of legitimate academic institutions -- probably to scam unsuspecting potential students. Since a Wikipedia search on its name returns the result "Did you mean: Worcester University" (which resolves to University of Worcester), I thought it would be worthwhile to put a hatnote on University of Worcester to alert those potential scam victims that this might not be the article they were looking for. The hatnote has nothing to with the University of Worcester, but rather with another outfit that may be posing as the University of Worcester. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (sorry to butt in but...) How about removing the redirect for Worchester University (that's weird to type), and starting a stub page. It could say something simple like "WU is a university in Panama City". If there is a reliable source saying the university is a bit shady, cite it. GyroMagician (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. Actually, there is no redirect for Worchester University. It's just that if a person searches Wikipedia for that name, they end up at University of Worcester. My hatnote said "Not to be confused with Worchester University, an unaccredited institution doing business in Panama." There probably isn't enough information to support an article on Worchester University. An anon added Worchester to List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, which is full of entries for shadowy outfits that cannot support articles, but that might be "enrolling" many "students". Typically, the only information that exists is a self-promotional website (in this instance, www.worchester.edu) and a reliable-source database that says the outfit is not an authorized university. --Orlady (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Until ORlady has created that stub following GyroMagician's excellent  suggestion, the issue has been resolved using Wkipedia logic, technology, and WP:UCS.--Kudpung (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good deal. However, I have a hunch that this one won't be considered notable (due to lack of third-party coverage) until someone buys a Worchester degree for a cat and publicizes the story. --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Saucy Worcestershire
Hi Kudpung. Thanks for the welcome bizzo following my signing up for helpings of Worcestershire. You know, it was only at that exact moment that the penny dropped about Worcestershire sauce. Before then, it was just bottles of sauce that I grew up with, dousing pies, chips, cakes, sleeping cats, and anything else that didn't move and thus might qualify as food. Of course, some things might qualify as food because they move, but it gets difficult not to spill the sauce when eating on the run.

Now, like the kid who has seen a cow for the first time and makes the connection with supermarket milk, I understand something deeply meaningful about the universe in which I exist. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated user page
Hi again Kudpung. I have amended my user page to take into account some new learning about these list-defined reference bizzos. The whole page has been amended to take into account, and move away from, the template r controversy. But more importantly, I have created a new section where I try to explain how I actually implement list-defined references. That itself arose from a revelation as I worked through some articles and added the templates. First, I realised that when I do implement list-defined references, I do it in a slightly different order to how I previously described. I don't do the inline reference first. Having created or amended the reference section to allow list-defined references to work, I first create the full reference that I want to show up, just as I would if I was embedding it in the article text. Only then do I place the inline bit into the article text.

Now, as a result of the recent exercises I've been doing, I realise how easy it is to generate the inline bit if using the template. To me, it's actually simpler than the r template, because you create the reference first, just as you would anyway, no matter what style you use. Then you give it a refname and then just copy and paste the  into the article, add a forward slash (/) thus, and presto, it works. The great irony is that this 'revelation' only came to me after all the recent developments. And it only came to me of course because I went through the exercise of replacing a number of r templates with templates, and reflecting on what I'd learned from the whole exercise.

Anyway, I'm not looking to convert you, but I would appreciate if you have a look at the How I do list-defined referencing section and comment on whether it makes sense to you as a description of how to do it. Regards Wotnow (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Milford Haven
 SilkTork  *YES! 13:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation wars
Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your message the other day. I won't be allowing myself to get dragged into that debate any further than I already did. It won't end anytime soon, if at all, and it will probably do a lot of harm along the way. I saw the writing on the wall early on. And that is exactly why I took the stance that I did, which was consistent with my original stance anyway. That is, the only gold standard is the reference information, whether or not a template of any sort is used. And if a template is used in any fashion for any reason, it must serve our purposes, not the other way around. So once I saw the writing on the wall, I replaced the ((r)) template in articles where I'd originally placed them, alerted Maedin (about the identified technical difficulties, not the looming storm), and did what I could to help Chienlit regain some integrity as a good faith editor.

In other words, once I could see there was controversy, packaged along with several agendas (themselves primarily good faith, but confounding solution and fuelling debate nonetheless), my opinion was, and remains, that the best thing to do is replace the contentious template and side-step the cesspool. Let it play out as it will. Let others who wish to be vehicles for that debate, or even drivers of it, do so. That is their choice.

I see that the ((r) template has been proposed for deletion, and some (I guess automated mechanism) now leaves a message at every use of the ((r)) template. This interferes with the readability of the Malvern, Worcestershire, Malvern Water, and Barnards Green articles - especially the first two. The mere act of leaving the ((r)) templates in place is causing problems not originally forseen or intended. Never mind if the tactic of making articles using the ((r)) templates unreadable smacks of the sort of underhandedness one sees in vicious political campaigns. Some will spot that and complain. I say so what?

My advice regarding these articles is that we replace the ((r)) templates with templates. This will bring back the readability of the articles, and avoid being caught up other people's campaigns. They aren't worth getting caught up in. It's not as if they save children's lives or anything really useful in life. I will assist replacing the templates if this if desired. I would estimate the overall time for the three articles at about an hours work. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Wotnow. I didn't  know there were any  citation wars. Anything  I  know about  citing  references is what  I  have come across accidentally  while navigating  artound the Wikipedia for other stuff. To  be quite truthful, I  tend to regard all Wikipedia templates as a necessary  evil, and clearly  many  of them  are made for the sake of making templates (it's a bit  like the craze, which  has thankfully  died down,  of making  Widgets when Mac OSX was first  released), so I never really looked into  what  you and Gyro  were doing because I  trust  your judgement as editors. What  I  have found is that using  even a basic citation  template cramps my style, takes longer to  complete, and gives the result in date formats only  understandable in the USA and not  by  the world at  large, hence  I  prefer to  write my ref strings in real time using  the quick instert button for the tags. I  find that any other method, particularly any  that  put  the ref information  in  another separate template in  another ==References== section defeats two  fundamental  objectives:


 * 1) The automatic generation of the numbered information  in  the
 * 2) The ability to  copy  and paste  a chunk of text complete with  its refs witout  having  to  hunt  for, and copy  and paste the rest  of the information  that  goes with  them as well.
 * However, I do certainly  agree that keeping  the ref information  out of the body text  makes the page code far  more readable for an editor, but  on the other hand, we're writing for readers who may not  know, and/or may  not  want  to  know, how php and html  work  and how web pages get  put together  for display  in  a browser. I am  biased of course, because I  write for content, whereas others have a genuine interest  in the programming that puts it  all together for us. I'm a bit  like a design  architect who leaves it up to  the structural engineers to  figure out  how to  build the thing! I suppose I  ought  to  take a more active interest  in this references saga and try  to  understand what  it's all about, because one thing is sure: sooner or later, three or four  Wikipedians will  arrive at  what  they  call a consensus and force the thirty  or forty  thousand others to follow their reasoning. --Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your reply. I wouldn't advocate taking an interest in the reference saga. I advocate avoiding being drawn into it, hence removal of the ((r)) template. That gets that bit out of the way. Then, as editors, it just comes down to the pros and cons of grouping the references together, or having them embedded in the article. That issue is separate to the ((r)) template issue, which is what the controversy is over.
 * You may recall my comments to Dana Boomer, (paragraph beginning "The creation of more problems...") where I say of templates that "There's no point trying to impose the ever-increasing use of templates on someone if they're using a method that is compatible with more recent developments - it may well be those people who are showing the greater sense!" So I readily see your point about templates, as does GyroMagician, which we both know from his comments. As a group of editors, we were, and will continue to be, interested only in generating good articles, with useful information, in the most efficient fashion for us as a group of editors. Templates can be useful, or a dangerous sidetrack. In my opinion, the ((r)) template didn't start out as a dangerous side-track, but it has become one. Hence I say let's be shot of it.


 * As for the then remaining question of list-defined references, I think your points are important, and they have been raised by other editors in these discussion forums which I've perused for learning purposes, but which I'm sure as hell going to avoid getting sucked into. In that regard, I think the best approach is to not implement it in any more Worcestershire articles unless there is a general consensus that there is a gain from its implementation. And that might only be partial implementation, as I did with the Shakespeare article, where I simply utilised it to get a handful of lengthy reference notes out of the article body, leaving everything else intact. As for the Malvern Water and Malvern articles, I would only suggest sitting on them as they are for a while, apart from getting rid of those contentious ((r)) templates. Let some time transpire to see how it fares OUTSIDE of those contentious debates, and removing the ((r)) templates allows you to step away from that, so you can make informed decisions over time without some artificial pressure arising from the use of a contentious ((r)) template. Regards Wotnow (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: deletion of William Pitcock
(copypaste from the response on my talk page) Sorry, I'm kinda new with references. I've mostly done vandalism cleanup the past two years. I know Pitcock is notable, but unfortunately a lot of his sites are currently down due to a rouge employee at his company. It's difficult to find references to him 'cause, although he's done a lot of work that's notable, he himself is somewhat of an unsung hero. I'd appreciate some help getting some references. -- Jacob Myers (Flame me!) 04:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about  it,  I  think  the consensus will be to  keep Pitcock. Finding  reliable, verifiable references can sometimes be hard but  at  the end of the day the Wiki  rule verifiability not  truth is applied. Which  means that however notable something  is and however deserving  of a Wiki  page, if it can't  be proven, it  can't  be written. Combatting vandalism is a great  mission -  keep up the good work and take a break  to  brush  up on WP:CITE. --Kudpung (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardwicke
HI -- I placed a reference on the Cedric Hardwicke page as you requested. Hope that helps! Randy 04:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rand503 (talk • contribs)

Unsourced UK radio articles
Hi there. I replied to a discussion you started on my talk page. As per recommendations on my talk page, I posted the reply on my talk page, which can be seen here: User talk:Tghe-retford. --tgheretford (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, as per your additional concerns over BLP violations in radio station articles. --tgheretford (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

news
Message from Graham moved to project  talk page at  WT:WORCS Personal messages go here. Please use the article or project talk pages for other comments.--Kudpung (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Worcestershire newsletter
Please don;t add the Worcestershire newsletter to my talk page; things like that should go on a page of their own, and a link to them be added to talk pages Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Andy, the newsletter is made in the same way  as all  newsletters - it is in  fact  a tiny  template and not  a page at  all. That's exactly  the same as the link you  requested, except  you  just  click  show and it  goes to  the template page where the newsletter is hosted. You  are quite at  liberty  to  delete the template from  your page (after you  have read the newsletter of course)  - it's your talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. The news letter is not wanted there, in any form other than a simple wikilink. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy, do let us know at WT:WORCS if you  no  longer wish  to  receive updates regarding  the Worcestershire project. If you  membership  status has changed,  please edit  your entry  on  the member list on  WP:WORCS. Please address all  comunications regarding  the Worcs project  to  the Worcs project  talk page as I  try  to  keep  this page here for personal  messages (see talk  page banner above). Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read what I wrote above, which was addressed to you personally. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy, I  don't  own the project, i'm  merely  a slave to  it. ALL communications regarding  the project  belong  on  the project  talk  page -  see below.--Kudpung (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The military history wikiproject posts a link instead of a transcluded template (see here). I just want to check that you find that preferable to recieving the collapsed template, which would actually take up fewer characters and less actual space on your talk page? Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung, and thanks for the latest edition of the newsletter. I think maybe some folks are less happy to receive it because it messes up the contents listing on talk pages (the invisible collapsed sections appear in the contents). Maybe it's better to follow MilHist, putting the newsletter on the WP:WORCS subpage and posting links to those that may be interested? (and yes, I will get back to tagging 'people in Worcs' soon!) GyroMagician (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The irony is, that I never wanted to do a newsletter in the first place. It was a weak attempt in trying to enlist some more support for the project. Some of those who joined have not made another edit since they put their name down.I get the point about the headers messing up peoples' contents lists. Admittedly something I never thought about although I tested the newsletter on my own talk page first. The advantage is that it's a template this time, so one fix does all, and a large number of newsletters are sent out this way. I would like to point  out once more however, for the benefit  of anyone following this thread, that  this kind of discussion would best  take place on the project  talk  page at  WT:WORCS, where other project  members will (hopefully) follow it  and take the initiative of producing  the next  newsletter.--Kudpung (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Architecture
Hello and welcome to the WikiProject Architecture - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards Elekhh (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Victorian architecture
Hi. I did it anonymously because I've been having trouble with stalkers for a while now. The situation has calmed down now, but who knows? Anyway, glad you liked my contribution. How did you track me down? If you can, so can others (but I intend to have a wikiholiday for a while anyway).

Sardaka (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your comments
Particularly if they are making what could be perceived as a slight, by making them without your signature, it looks as if you are making a drive by slight with the hope that they will be lost in the mass of posts on the page. I'll AGF, but without the sig, it looks more derogatory than it was probably intended.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Balloonman, Thanks for pointing something out, but I have no idea what  you  are talking  about  if you  can't refer to  something  I have edited or contributed to. I assume, as your name rings a bell, that it is to  do  with  the BLP issue;. I  am a conscientious editor who always signs  his  edits and completes edit  summaries. If I omitted to  do  so  it  was totally unintentional -  I  have absolutely  nothing to  hide and a clear conscience. A quick look  at  the page history  will  always reveal who  posted -  unless of course they  are hiding  behind an IP or a sock. I  have no time to waste in contributing to  a RfC if my  comments are not  to  be taken seriously.--Kudpung (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I figured. It was on the BLP RFC... you made two comments, where you failed to sign your comments.  As unsigned post, they LOOK worse than what I think you intended, which is why I mentioned it. I'm glad, however, to have you confirm that it was a mistake and not intentional.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been back to those two edits and signed them.--Kudpung (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wellingborough....again
Hi Kudpung as the Wellingborough page gets nearer to a B rating im finding it increasingly hard to find references for the Notable Wellingburians section. Im also planning to change the section into a paragraph, but not until the refs are made to get it the rating. Could you help find any refs please, thanks.Likelife (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look over the next day  or two. Actually ; the article is getting  closer to  GA than even a B.--Kudpung (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now copyedited the section, please see the page history  and use the compare version  feature to see what  I  have done because it will  give you  an idea how to  compose prose better suited for the encyclopedia. Putting  lists of people into  prose is not  easy and in  my  opinion  is one of the silliest  Wikipedia recommendations. If ever you  want  to  go  for GA, those people whose own Wiki pages are unsourced will  have to  be dropped,  because their own pages will  soon  be deleted following  a current  drive to  clean up  all  unsourced biographies. I  have done one or two other edits including  removing all the fine details about  the council's future plans. This is really  speculation on the future as far as an encyclopedia is concerned, and it  can be looked up  by  any reader following the links provided.The references are now all  displaying  with a consistent  format. Any  future references should display  the same way.--Kudpung (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: All you nerd to  d  now is either provided references for the Iron  ore section, or cut  the section out.--Kudpung (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kudpung. I just fixed a link and added a few lines on todays Green light for 3,000 new homes as I think it is notable. The page is coming along nicely. Likelife (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

British English
Can you give me a link to what you are complaining of? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm complaining about the reintroduction  of the final  rhotic r in  the names of Worcertershire, Herefordshire, and Warwickshire. It's an edit  revert  war, perpetrated by  an admin, among  other reasons, which is why  I don't  think  it's particularly  cool.--Kudpung (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not do phonetics, but I know the Americans talk of Worcestershire sauce, not "Worster" sauce. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He's complaining about me specifically, but also about the WP consensus on how to transcribe English pronunciations. My most charitable explanation is that he is so set on assuming bad faith on my part that he hasn't actually bothered to read anything that has challenged his initial assumptions, even by other editors. kwami (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung. Can you give us an example or more than one example of where this is happening please? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've spent some time reading through all the discussions. My problem is that unlike you I am not technically knowledgeable enough in this area, so I can't easily tell if you have a case that merits action other than that which has already happened. Reading LFH's comments on his talk page in the discussion with you, I tend to think he has some good points. I can't see a lot of evidence for the edit revert war you mention above, although there has been some sparring. For what it's worth I totally agree with the quote you make on LFH's talk page about the "randomcracy" and the broken-ness of WP, but that tends to support the view I've formed that much of this is hobby-like, eg, the debating is like a hobby as are the "wars" and "winners and losers". Given how obviously non-functional WP is especially at the technical edges like this where you are an expert and see error, I kind of think "what's new" and "is it worth the bother"? WP is good but it clearly has severe limits which the public are increasingly aware of and discuss. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Frmatt (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WT:FOOTY
Please can you clarify your complaint? Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi WFCforLife, thanks for your response. I'm not actually  complaining. I'm just  wondering why  football  articles are, or appear to be exempt  from  WP:CITE, that's all,  because  and  placed on  football  articles and/or BLPs of footballers get reverted. BTW: I see you  have also  been contributing  to  Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. --Kudpung (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the speedy reply. I think the two tags are different cases. Dealing specifically with BLP unreferenced, it can be replaced with BLPsources provided there is some sort of reliable source. If controversial information remains unsourced, that can be removed per BLP policy, and should not be restored without citation. BLPsources should only be removed once the sourcing is adequate, which usually means at least one source per paragraph, with specific claims cited inline where controversial or extraordinary. I invite you to continue this discussion at WT:FOOTY if you feel that there is a project-wide issue with our wikiproject's handling of BLPs, or consider talking to the individual editor if it largely seems to be one person. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I perfectly understand the use of all  the tags, but  thanks anyway for confirming what  I  already  know - it's comforting to  know I am  on the right track. As an active project member (and involuntary  leader, sigh!), I am coming  across a huge number of footy  articles that are unsourced, too numerous now for me to  even attempt to  remember them and list  them. The problem has escalated since I  noticed that  tags are being removed by  anons, and without  es.  The extent  of all this naturally  lead me toassume that  I  was in  the wrong, and that  there may  be a WP:CITE exemption of some kind for footy. I've taken your advice and will continue this discussion on the WP:FOOTY page as I  see that  several  other members have reacted too.--Kudpung (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good place to continue. Sorry if my response sounded patronising, that certainly wasn't my intention. WFCforLife (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It didn't  sound patronising, and I  know it  wasn't  your intention ;) --Kudpung (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation
I was wondering if you wanted a break from your usual editing and would be interested in some translation from French? The Brontë article is at FA on the French wiki and the English article could do with bringing up to scratch with information from the French version. I tagged it for translation a while back but as yet not response from the translators. Keith D (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith, you're probably right  about  needing a break -  I've just  got myself ANI'd for trying to clean up the encyclopedia! I'll take a look, but  if it's a major work, I'll  have to  spread it  over several days.--Kudpung (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, no problem - it has been hanging around a while now and I just thought that it needed to be moved along. Keith D (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just spent  over an hour just  looking at  both article and their talk  pages. The FR  article is huge -  almost the scope of a doctoral  thesis! There are suggestions on  its talk page to split  lots of bits off into  individual  articles. Fortunately  the Fr are far more disciplined in  their discussions and by  pure coincidence (I didn't know this) my  son-in-law is an admin on  its FA committee. The Fr article is really  so  large it  could be a stand-alone WP project  in  its own right. I  would have to spend a lot of time analysing the FR article to  first  establish what  bits should be translated and how they  could be embedded into the Engl article. It represents about  80 A4 pages if it  were printed out.  It's doable, but it's  going  to  be a monster task. It  would take up all  my  Wiki  time fo 4 - 6 weeks and isolate me completely  from  my  micromanagement  of WP:WORCS and other projects. I suggest  that  we should have a dedicated task force for it. I  know that  your interest  stems from  your involvement  with  WP:YORKS; possibly  such a task  force could comprise members from  both Yorks and WP:WPBIO. Have you  any  suggestions how to  go  about  this?--Kudpung (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look, on the face of it it looks like it is a non-starter. At the moment the WP:YORKS project members seem to have gone into hibernation and very few are active. I cannot see much effort from them, the WP:BIO project seem to be tied up with the BLP problems at the moment, so I cannot see any effort from that quarter. Keith D (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a 99.9% native French speaker so I can translate as fast  as I  can  type. What I will do  is to  have occasional stabs at it and store what  I  do  on my dedicated user space HERE where anyone else can hack it  about  and use it.--Kudpung (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I gave up French in the third year so can just about pick out the odd word here and there. Keith D (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith. I taught in  a French university  for 12 years, and I'm  use to their attention  to detail and even redundancy  and duplication. While this is a lesson that  could be learned by  many  of us English  Wikil  editors,  the more I  work through this (I  just  started the translation  without  spending four hours reading  through everything  first) the more I  realise how complex and complete the French article is. In spite of the very large sections on each member of the family, they  even have their own even larger main articles.I do  need some help  to  avoid unnecessary  duplication, seeing as how the bronte sisters all ahve their own pages on the Eng Wiki too. However, I'm  going to  continue plodding through the Bronte family  article, but  there is probably  going to  be a lot more discussion on this before we are finished. Could you suggest  a more apt  place for this discussion  than on our talk pages? The talk page at  Bronte is already  a bit crowded,  and if it  were somehow more centralised, we may  get  support for more involvement.--Kudpung (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The material will probably be useful for building up each of the articles on the members of the family, it would make a good featured topic at some point in the future but there is a long way to go before that. If you do not think the article talk page is the place for discussion then you could use the WP:YORKS talk page but it may get lost there among other topics. Cannot think of any other place unless you have a dedicated sub-page of the Bronte talk page just for this purpose with a link to it from the main talk page. Keith D (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion continues HERE.

The dreaded IPA talk page
Thank you for that. You have elegantly elaborated that which I was, by frustration, unable to say. Here's hoping (hope over expectation) that some sense comes out of this. Cheers Fortnum (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It took  some courage, but  I'm  still not  holding my  breath! --Kudpung (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One-on-one

 * It's nice that you use numbers to list off your points, as it makes it clear to you what I'm responding to and clear to me what you're responding to, but because you didn't continue the numbering in your subsequent post, I feel like some of my points weren't, and won't be, addressed. This sort of thing undercuts in-depth and progressive conversation.  Part of the difficulty seems to be that you're attempting to respond to multiple editors, at least one of whom you feel is acting improperly.
 * Do you think you could, in my talk page, respond to the points that I've brought up in this reply to your post? This will just be for an exchange between you and me so that neither of us is overwhelmed and we can make sure none of our important points are missed or ignored.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  08:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * aeusoes, I  appreciate you  efforts and sincerity to  discuss this IPA issue in a calmer environment, but  the truth  of the matter, as I  have explained before,  is that in  my work  on this encyclopedia I  never wanted to cover the things I  do  at  work - that's why, apart from helping  out with some general maintenance work, I  write about  wine, settlements in the UK and Europe, and micromanage the WP:WORCS. It  was through my  work  on  the English  county  articles that it  was discovered from  my  user page that  I  am a linguist  and I  was drawn into the IPA saga by other geography  editors who couldn't understand why  their articles were being attacked by  the IPAists. They  obviously  had enough  basic understanding of the IPA, however, to  raise their initial  questions,   which clearly  demonstrated to me that  something needed looking  into. I'm afraid I  was rather turned off by  the incivility  that  I met, and the protectionism of a few authors who were building a virtual  stone wall  around their Wiki  world of IPA. If the welcome had been warmer, and more willingness to address the issues had been shown rather than just  answer our questions with  new, unrelated ones, and then accusing us of  not  answering them, perhaps I  would have been more inclined to continue on this theme.  The discussion  got  totally  off track, and petered out. I  think the issues are still  very  far  from  resolved, and if any one declares the discussion prematurely  closed, it  will only  flare up  again when the next  bunch  of county  projects realise what  is happening to  their place names. I think  I'll  go now and open a bottle of Châteauneuf-du-Pape.--Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you
thanks for the information on writing for Wikipedia, specifically in the Herefordshire entry. Naivety made me jump in and copy the form of other pages - Herefordshire, economy and its link to Bulmers with its commercial website links, plus all the tourism material under such pages as Tourism in Britain. I'll follow Wikipedia guidelines in further entries and edits. Thanks again, Robert DewarRobert Dewar (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)