User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2011

G'day / Thanks re: Natblack10 / Primary Schools
G'day Kudpung. Thanks for your help earlier with Natblack10. I think he's got the message, and I'll help him/her through any further issue.

In regards to primary schools, for example any schools that Natblack10 may feel to add... Yes, I'm aware of the general guidelines regarding schools. You'll note that I've long been one of the participants listed at WP:SCHOOLS (as well as at WP:EIA of course). I'm also aware that there is no strict prohibition against primary schools, particularly because some primary schools are notable for one reason or another. I think that Natblack10 should be given the benefit of the doubt for the time being regarding the primary schools he wants to put up (per WP:AGF); especially if he's just editing in his own userspace, as I've suggested on his/her talk page. Of course, if s/he can't come up with something notable, then I'll guide him through that.

I've been working with a couple of other users (particularly User:Moondyne to align with the rest of the schools project, particularly in regards to the infoboxes. I think Moondyne has proposed the Australian school infoboxes for deletion as they're redundant because we've moved all schools over to Infobox school.

I'm very interested in anything that we end up doing in regards to schools, and am happy to sign up for any help that can be provided from the Australian end of things. Any way to keep posted (besides watching that page; I've currently got ~1000 odd vandalism prone schools on my list)?

Thanks for dropping me a message, and, as I said, don't worry about Natblack10; I'll keep an eye on him/her. - danjel  (talk to me) 09:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan, thanks for your input. You are right that there is no  strict  rule that  primary  schools are banned, but long experience and outcomes of some very hard fought AfD (some quite recent that reinforce over again the consensus) has shown that extremely  few primary school are able to come  up  with  something that makes them  notable. generally; my  own  criteria would be if they  were of special  architectural interest either ancient or modern, are very old (like a couple of hundred years) and still going, have received some  extraordinarily important national or international award (such as a Duke of Edinburgh Scheme), or have spawned some really notable people,such  as a Nobel Prize winner.


 * It's up to you guys which infobox you use, just let us know at WP:WPSCH so that the guidelines get amended as necessary - or do it yourself of course but leave a message on the talk page because a newsletter has been written that will soon go out to several ten thousand creators and editors of school pages.


 * As far as Natblack10 is concerned, I've also left message there, but they have taken to blanking their talk page; They apparently have a history of warnings for disruptive editing. Thanks for all your help and take care, Kudpung (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Danj is better. :) I know too many "Dans".


 * Yeah, I've had this discussion with other people before... The architectural significance issue is something that I'm interested in pursuing for certain Australian public schools, as there are a few that occupy Heritage-listed buildings.


 * Beyond those points you've suggested, however, I also believe that schools that have specific curricular differences are also interesting. Such as schools that teach bilingually or have extraordinary provisions for gifted students or have interesting foci in their teaching.


 * I'm thinking of doing some regional pages, rather than linking through to localities generally. Greenwich Public School links through to Greenwich, which is not useful for any encyclopaedic use for the school. I'll agree that the school isn't particularly notable, but an article on North Sydney Region would be, and would be more useful for someone interested in Greenwich PS. Thoughts thoughts. Sorry about the rambling, just thinking out loud.


 * We're using the Infobox school. Long discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia, with User:Moondyne and I as major participants. Besides one editor who didn't really like what was happening, the consensus was to move to Infobox school. I'll leave a message at the talk page as you've suggested.


 * I know, I saw that. You be bad cop, I'll be good cop. Heh. We'll see how he goes. It seems he has access to some things which generally aren't publicly accessible ([] which is probably a WP:COPYVIO, for example, isn't something that's usually publicly accessible). So he might be useful if we can bring him on side. Leave me to it.


 * So. To sum. (1) Going over to drop WP:SCHOOLS a line regarding the infobox; (2) well aware of notability requirements for primary schools; (3) thinking about regions (sorry for thinking out loud); (4) I'm adopting Natblack10.


 * Happy new year, mate. If I recall correctly, new years in Thailand is.. busy. But, looking forward to working with you in future. - danjel  (talk to me) 10:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All good stuff Danj, nice to see someone down under keeping an eye on things. Kudpung (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Taubman Institute AfD
Thanks for your comments at the AfD. It was started very much in good faith. I realise now that it wasn't the right thing to do; but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Thanks again for not assuming the worst. The comments on there had started to get me down. Yours, even though short, did help to lift my spirits. All the best for 2011. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  21:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't discuss the editors or their behaviour on AfD debates, but I would also agree that there was an uncalled for breach of our civility rules. Best thing is not to react, hard as it seems. All the best for 2011 :) Kudpung (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Yes, did you see that Infobox Australian school has been orphaned? Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

re: PNHS
Hi - you're welcome, but this was not vandalism. This is a good-faith editor trying to make an article in a language in which he is clearly not at even an intermediate level. Nonetheless, he's disruptive because he either can't or won't understand the warnings and consider community input. Disruption is different than vandalism, but it's still blockable under the right circumstances, and this is one of those. Hopefully he'll read your message and begin to understand the problem. If not, we have ways to deal with it. :-) Thanks! :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   06:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it was not vandalism, but there was no other way at the time to  get a quick reaction and a block. Let's hope s/he understands the Tagalog translation.--Kudpung (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Companies proposed deleted
Hi you have proposed some pages I have created to be deleted. I need you to explain me why. Usually my articles are accepted and these articles would definitely be notable at wikipedia where I mostly write. --Patchfinder (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's quite right. The reasons are on the PROD notices that are on your talk  page. The articles have been on the English Wikipedia unreferenced for nearly  30 days and no editors have been able to pass them as patrolled. We have stricter rules here that the de.Wiki. You have seven days more to improve them by proving that they are notable and providing  references. For more information, you  can click all the blue words in this message - they will link you to the relevant policies. --Kudpung (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it seems like there have come some new rules within the last 1-2 years, so they now are stricter. If I have understand the rules right the article Vestfrost should now meet the requirements. Please give me feedback. --Patchfinder (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi :)

 * Talk back. Cheers :)   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Overcategorization
Not strictly familiar with the school overcat you are mentioning, but categories have become (or maybe always were) a bit out of hand. I think this needs tightening but don't know how or where to begin.

In an unrelated topic, a train incident article rolls up into "train accidents" cat, which in turn rolls up into "transportation disasters"! This is just a tiny example. I'm sure you've run into them as well. Student7 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My sentiments entirely, and trains is a good example. With schools is goes on ad absurdum. There are several hundred categories, many  which  simply  duplicate each other such  as:
 * Comprehensive schools, secondary schools, community  schools, high  schools, which  all  mean  the same thing
 * Comprehensive schools in the UK, secondary schools in  the UK,  community  schools in  the UK, high  schools in  the UK, then:
 * Comprehensive schools in Scotland, secondary schools in  Scotland,  community  schools in  Scotland, high  schools in  Scotland, then
 * Comprehensive schools in Worcestershire, secondary schools in  Worcestershire,  community  schools in  Worcestershire, high  schools in  Worcestershire, then
 * Comprehensive schools in Worcester, secondary schools in  Worcester,  community  schools in  Worcester, high  schools in  Worcester, then
 * multiply all  that  by private schools, independent schools, UK public school, which  all  mean the same thing
 * multiply all  that  by private secondary schools, independent secondary schools, UK public school,  etc, etc.
 * in fact  we have several  hundred (if not  thousands) of cats for schools on  Wikipedia,  some of which  have only  one schoo in  them.  there a re however two  ways of looking  at  it: it's highly  granular which  (theoretically) makes it  easy  for someone looking  for a specific type of school in a specific locality, but it make our job of creating lists and stats exceptionally  complicated. For example, I'm  still looking urgently for someone to  find a way (using  catscan or a bot, whatever) to  make a list  of the creators of all school  articles since 1 January 2008. I  know very  little about cats and nothing about bost. --Kudpung (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For this example given above, UK schools are a bit more of a problem than US schools. Double the nomenclature, double the problems, as you have pointed out.
 * I have the sneaking suspicion that if you can collect information with a bot, you can also do a lot of other things, as well. :) They probably keep these close at hand. Indeed, you might glance at Bots. I suspect that they already have a bot that can be converted for your use. Whether you can talk someone into doing that or not, I don't know. I would be interested in what happens. Alwsys wanted to know a bot expert. Now you're about to become one!  :)
 * You might try the Village Pump. They may have a suggestion for some method that I can't think of, of doing a "search" on topics or something that is available as a utility. That would be a lot easier, if true. Student7 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I'm not  about  to  become a bot  expert -  I know nothing  about that end of programming ;) I can't even get my old head around catscan,  and I can't get anyone to write the grep for me so that I can register the schools project for the NewArticle alert bot.  I've already asked a few bot handlers but they have either not replied, or just made alternative suggestions. Nobody seems to realise how important  the planned cleanup  of schools articles is. Problem with  schools is,  most of the school articles are created by SPA, kids and teachers, who don't  read any  guidelines at all, and who  rarely come back (at least not to the school article they created). As a result, tens of thousands of school pages are in a terrible mess, exacerbated by the huge number of 'members' we have at  the project  which  is all  but  dead and which I'm trying to revive. We have a similar problem with school infobox templates. We have 39 where four or  five standard ones are more than enough. Like cats, many people think they have to  create a new infobox every  time. If you  have more good suggestions, or want  to  add fuel to  the fire, your comments would be most welcome  at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools where the project pages have many more watchers than my talk page. We need as much help  and feedback as possible, and I check out the project several times daily. Users/admins/bot handlers/programmers to nudge are User talk:Kingpin13, User talk:Keith D, User talk:Kanguole, User talk:Rich Farmbrough, User talk:Jarry1250, if you  feel  like a try.--Kudpung (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you are over my head! I will record you on my page as being interested in cleanup and copy these folks to a comment on my page for the record, since they will be archived from here eventually. All things are possible in good time! Student7 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

replied
I didn't see any messages for me there. I've started a new thread on embedded links sections.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   02:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for chiming in TH. That is exactly what my tb was intended to facilitate :) --Kudpung (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Skippers Hill Manor Preparatory School
Hi there!

Thank you for taking an interest in the article Skippers Hill Manor Preparatory School. I have noticed that you feel it is not notable, however one of the notable alumni (as stated on the page: See Notable Alumni) is an Ashes winning Female English Cricketer, who (I believe, although might be worth reviewing her Wiki article)was the youngest ever woman to join the ladies team - I feel this is very significant. Regards Philip.t.day (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Philip. Articles are usually discussed on the appropriate talk page. Permit me to  suggest also that you take no notice of irrelevant comments that contain only half truths from any users who have a disregard for some basic Wikipedia conventions. Talk pages are for discussing articles, not the editors. Best wishes for 2011, --Kudpung (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re. Thanks
Thank you for your comments and for your kind invitation to join the Worcestershire project. Best wishes for 2011.Mhygelle (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Flags and other things
Hey, Kudpung, thanks for the kind words on my Talk page. I hope you understand that I do respect your knowledge. I was just taught at a very early age to question all authority, so I rarely accept anything, no matter who it comes from, unless it makes sense to me.

Honestly, I find many of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies to be daunting in their ambiguities. Perhaps it's a little like legislation where the final product is a compromise of many different people's points of view and therefore has a somewhat unfocused feel to it. I also see this here in the many arguments by editors ranging from inexperiened, to somewhat experienced (probably where I fit in), to very experienced (probably you) as to what the policies mean. Many of these discussions never really reach consensus. Rather, they reach some sort of critical mass where some final wording or usage is adopted simply because it is and everyone is tired of arguing about it.

For example, one such process currently going on right now at BLPN is about the use of Jewish categories. I started the discussion and it has, of course, mushroomed. It's a little like a complex mystery novel. I have no idea how it will turn out - perhaps there will be alternative endings. I do know, however, that these sorts of discussions, which, admittedly, I often instigate, frustrate the hell out of me. In the Jewish discussion, one experienced editor implied I was stupid and accused me of wasting everyone's time. In response to that particular post, I lost my cool a bit, which I rarely do and try hard not to because I'm a great believer in civility, but no one but me remarked on the inappropriateness of his comments. It's times like those that I feel I should abandon my editing efforts here because of the negative emotional impact it has. I sometimes watch the far more circus-like atmosphere at AIN and wonder how can people talk to each other like that. Just the arguments over what is civil and what is not are mind-boggling, at least to me. I'm a big fan of civility in non-Internet life, but in Internet forums, civility is even more important because of how easy it is to forget that we're human beings, not electrons.

Anyway, I've gone on way too long and strayed very far from the flag icon subject. Forgive me for venting. I've posted a further update about the flag thing on EAR.

Thanks for listening.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I find you echoing  many  of my  own sentiments again. Consensus is one of the weird and wonderful ways Wikipedia works. To change anything, we would need a consensus to to  change to  a different  system. Problem  is, no one can come up  with  a better system. We  have the same perennial discussion  over the grossly  unfair way we elect our admins. second problem is like the French meeting: Il faut  convoquer une  réunion afin de convoquer une réunion -  You  have to  call  a meeting  to  discuss calling a meeting. if you've ever lived and worked in France you'll kow what I  mean. However, it  seems to  work  for the French! Don't  abandon yet, we're all  volunteers here and nothing  is worth  getting upset about -  we all have enough serious issues in  real life to  contend with :) --Kudpung (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I lived in France a long time ago for a few years. I loved it. Unlike most Americans, I like the French people. Sure, they can be a pain in the ass sometimes, but they don't have a monopoly on that characteristic. I enjoy their willingness to argue without making it personal. Americans, on the other hand, like to settle things in, uh, less civilized ways, the Wild West mentality.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I lived in France permanently for 12 years and still have a home there. My extremely close connections with  the country go back nearly 50 years however! I  also  lived in  Germany  for 16 years... --Kudpung (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lucky you! I have friends in France whom I visit but no home. I think about retiring there, though, but it would be somewhat complicated. In addition to everything else, it's a beautiful country.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me to communicate with an editor I have a dispute with, without going to comittee?
Greetings,

I noted you made a minor edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constable#Nevada recently and seeing that you are a very active Wikipedia editor, I wonder if you could offer some advice. I am quite new at editing. I was recently elected Constable of the Township of Laughlin, Nevada. I have been correcting and enlarging the article of on Nevada Constables for a few weeks, but someone keeps undoing the edits. Now a few of the changes this editor made were, in fact, worthwhile and one or two seemed like a reasonable compromise. But this editor has simply taken to every other day or so, reverting back to the article as it was about the time I started. I have a few speculations about why they are doing this, but the bottom line as I see it is this. a) this editor does not give reasons for his edits b) his edits constitute what seems to me to be censorship, since he keeps removing, valid facts and c) there seems to be a certain level of advocacy (something I was caught for by an alert editor on another article when I was just starting to do some editing of my own - and that editor was correct. I reworked my edit to be neutral.)

Can you help me to contact this editor without violating their privacy? I've tried leaving a message for him (or her) but have seen no reply and the edits continue, again, without any explanation. I feel I'm justified in undoing major edits done without explanation, but the whole thing seems a little adolescent. I'm trying to use the dispute procedure and it says first try to talk to the other person. Being new, I'm not really sure I've exhausted all possibilities or if I even tried to contact him correctly.

Any help would be appreciated76.0.205.19 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

Jordan Ross, Constable Laughlin, Nevada

Post Script
Oops! Sorry I wasn't logged in when I left that last message and I see you are already ahead of me! Thanks I'll try the talk page22:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Jordan Clements Ross (talk) next. Wish me luck!

Thanks for your comment
"Why does every sports person who has played one professional game, every street musician, every bit part actor, every kid who went on X Factor and Got Talent, and every small town hack and painter merit an article on the flimsiest of sources, while life-long academics have to jump through a whole page of hoops?" I enjoy this quote from your page. I wish you will stick to it --Adumoul (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will Adumoul, I will :) --Kudpung (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Threats
I am sorry bit I can't see where in ''Kudpung routinely tags primary school articles for non-notability. In the case of Skippers 'ill I'd say the article is a bit on the thinnish side and indeed most of the refs come from the school's own materials. I am not sure what you can do. The Downs School (Herefordshire) seems to be a good example of what might be required to salvage the matter.'' there is anything that could be construed as an attack on you. The one mention of you is that I say that you tag articles about primary schools for deletion - which is true. In the case of the QSTSC you tagged it for "non-notability" within minutes of it being added to Wp. As the AfD discussion showed this was a complete waste of everyones time and energy. If you had waited or had actually helped out with the article you would have found that there were plenty of sound refs which attest to the value of the article to Wp. Silent Billy (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For you information I have spent 87 minutes cleaning up the Skpippers article, and it  still falls very short of established Wikipedia standards for any  article,  and will  be merged to the page about its locality if its authors or other editors cannot improve it to  meet notability requirements. Perhaps you could consider doing the same for some of the articles you comment on, and bearing in mind that Wikipedia policy is to discuss the articles, and not the editors, especially those who are just doing some of the less enviable, but wholly necessary  tasks. . --Kudpung (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: For the benefit of anyone following this thread,  QSTSC was an article you created, and it was proposed for: Unremarkable primary (elementary) school. Delete, or merge to Queensland per accepted procedure. (bold text is mine). An AfD is never a waste of time, it is indeed the fairest process applied to  any  article that  any  editor may feel might not meet Wikipedia criteria, but  which  is not  a clear candidate for WP:CSD, WP:PROD, or WP:BLPPROD. I admit that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are complex, and sometimes even ambiguous or contradictory, but  some knowledge of them  is necessary for everyone, as well as the strong recommendation to prepare new articles in one's user space, and then posting them to main space when  there is little or no likelihood of them being tagged.  I  hope this helps.Kudpung (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Coimbatore Cultural Academy
Dear Kudpung,

How do you do. I am the author of Coimbatore Cultural Academy which was recently

It is a very small article about a small school.

Can you please help me come up with the article.

Thanks, Rama.

CoimbatoreCA (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoimbatoreCA (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung,

I am planning to post the following for Coimbatore Cultural Academy. Please let me know If this is OK.

Hello, I am trying to re-create Coimbatore Cultural Academy with the following content. Can you please help.

The Coimbatore Cultural Academy (CCA) was founded in the year 2002. It was founded with a vision to create excellence in extracurricular activities. Initially started with a few courses, today CCA conducts 20 courses under 1 roof. Abacus, Keyboard, Guitar, Western Dance, Classical Dance, Painting, Vocal, Vedic Maths, Karate etc are taught. Future Kids, Montessori chain of Pre Schools & Fun Schools was founded in the year 2001. It offers Montessori education to children of age group 1 3/4 to 4 years. Thanks. CoimbatoreCA (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoimbatoreCA ([talk]] • contribs) 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry Rama, but I don't think we will be able to include this in Wikipedia because it is a fairly new school, a small school, and a school only for children aged 1 3/4 to 4 years, therefore it does not meet our notability standards. It's been deleted twice already and you can read why at Articles for deletion/Coimbatore cultural academy. We only generally have articles for high schools that teach students to 18. You can read all about making articles for schools at WP:WPSCH/AG, but I recommend that you first check out some basic editing instructions by following the links on your talk page.Regards, Kudpung (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cavanaugh (actor)
You suggested on my talk page that User:Mightbeginnings might be a sock puppet of a banned user, having recreated the deleted article Michael Cavanaugh (actor). Sorry it has taken a while to reply, but I have had less time for Wikipedia recently than usual.

The short answer is that your guess is as good as mine. I think the sockpuppet suggestion looks quite possible, but the article is not similar enough to make it a duck case, and without checkuser information I don't see any way of knowing. It might be worth starting a sockpuppet investigation, and requesting a checkuser. If you do so then you might like to also include the IP 217.42.109.109, which has extensively edited the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I wrote that I have realised that all of the user's edits are hoaxes, so I have blocked the account. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA question
Hi Kudpung. I was reading your comment in Gimme danger's RfA and was curious what you meant about too many automated edits. A couple of people have mentioned that, and it surprised me a bit. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't comment on how I voted, or on my comments, but you are welcome to check this out. --Kudpung (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS and this: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship ` there are several live threads, I  comment  on  most  of them.--Kudpung (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply and the link. I see from that you have a <20% threshold for automated edits, may I ask why? If you don't wish to discuss it, I will respect that. Regarding the RfA talk page, I have that (and Mkativerata's new sandbox) watchlisted and read every comment, and the current discussions are quite interesting. Most of the time I'm able to restrain myself from joining in, but I do chime in occasionally. 28bytes (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read the links, especially  the one to  my  sub page, and saw my  answer to  WereSpielChequers' four  points at talk  RfA, I think my position on auto edits is generally  clear :) --Kudpung (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I guess this may be one of those areas where we'll have to agree to disagree. :) Regardless, your RfA criteria page is very well-thought out and detailed; I enjoyed reading it. 28bytes (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see what we're disagreeing on - apart from stating that you were 'curious what you meant about too many automated edits', you haven't mentioned anything else. I don't discuss how or why I voted on any particular RfA, but I'm perfectly open to any discussion that will hopefully lead to an improvement in the current RfA system, and encourage more good editors to come forward and run for office. --Kudpung (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. I guess my question is, why is a low automated count percentage desirable? If a candidate has (for example) 12,000 non-automated edits, why does it matter if that's 20%, 50% or 100% of their total edits? 28bytes (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't  does it? If you  see my  answers to  WereSpielChequers' four points. The criteria on  my  user page are flexible, some quqlities can compensate for others, but any number of mass minor edits with  Huggle and/or Twinkle do  not demonstrate the capacity  for good judgement  that  is required for many  of the admin tasks, nor  do  they  compensate for a good knowledge of content or new policy building. Kudpung (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree 100% that mass Huggling/Twinkling (is that a word?) don't compensate for good policy knowledge or a record of content contributions, but it just seems to be that if the candidate has demonstrated those things with their non-automated edits, the fact that they may also have a huge number of automated edits shouldn't be seen as a negative. And if they haven't demonstrated good policy knowledge or content contributions, having 0% automated edits shouldn't be seen as a positive. I'm just struggling to think of a case in which the percentage itself would be relevant, and I can't come up with any... could you give me a (hypothetical) example? 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought you  said you'd read my  sub page ;) My  threshold of 6,000 edits of which 1,200 can be auto is not, IMHO, setting  the bar  too  high. In fact my  main bone of contention, which  I  share with  many  others, is the number of so called 'optional' additional  questions that are designed to  faze the more experienced candidates who  generally  have much  more experience that  the people who  pose them. Grossly  unfair in  my  opinion. Kudpung (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been following the discussions on the optional questions; I actually enjoyed answering the optional questions in my (brief) RfA, as I thought they were quite thought-provoking and gave me a chance to demonstrate how I would handle various situations... but I recognize I may be in the minority there. And I can certainly think of a few questions I've seen that are really unfair to ask a candidate, since which ever way the candidate answers will be cause for some people to oppose. Ideally, a candidate could say as much: "I don't think this is a fair question, and I'm going to decline to answer it," but of course that would probably get some opposes too, so I don't know what the solution is there. 28bytes (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Catch 22. --Kudpung (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep. 28bytes (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Confirmation
I've done extensive research on this page and it all seems to check out. I don't understand why you would suggest that it should be removed. His music videos are affiliated with MTV, he has a reality show that has been picked up by the CW network, and he has a music and film deal with Universal. He's the youngest owner ever of a professional basketball team which happens to also be global (ABA) He's also one of Atlanta's top producing real estate agents. He is a socialite and exclusive party promoter in the greater Atlanta area as well. He seems to be extremely notable and worthy of a wikipedia entry as far as I'm concerned. His sites www.AdrianProvost.com and www.PlanetProvost.com are very notable, as well as his charity Life Juice. He's had numerous television appearances and is well known throughout society. I've reviewed plenty of articles on wikipedia and I can not seem to find justification for the deletion of this page, but the inclusion of some of those other articles. It doesn't seem to make sense to me, please help me understand this. I've spent a considerable amount of time researching the subject and even more time in contributing to the article. I would appreciate an explanation in further detail and would like to know the necessary steps to get this included so I don't feel as if I have wasted so much of my time. Thanks - With Kind Regards I Remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.45.168 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk page stalker comments: I've asked the IP to use the AfD discussion page instead of making their case on user talk pages. --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bonadea. Kudpung (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Medium
Hi, Kudpung, please take a look at the latest changes to the article infobox trying to say the show is over before it's over. There was an internal comment, but editors remove the comment and put in 2011 anyway. I don't want to war about this. The show will be over shortly. Should I even care about this? It's a typical wikipedia phenomenon of trying to insert information about the future. In this instance, it's not a WP:CRYSTAL issue because the show will be over on January 21, 2011, but I just get annoyed at historical data being added to articles before it happens. I also don't understand why I'm almost always in a minority on these issues, but maybe I'm just out of step. :-) In any event, I don't have the energy to raise the issue on the Talk page.

Let me know what you think. It won't bother me a bit if you disagree with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Will it be over? Wikipedia is not a medium. AFAICS the does not link to a reliable source, and any news of it ending appears to be still based on conjecture from the actors - although I have not personally made any research for other sources. It might indeed be scheduled to end then, but I don't see the current Wikipedia article fulfilling its role of verifiability. Historical 'facts' should never be reported in an encyclopedia before they  happen - to do so would defeat the philosophy of encyclopedia building. However, as there is now only a week to go, I suggest not making too much fuss about it. When the current series ends however, if there is not a rapid official announcement from the TV network, or the series producers, or national press, then of course the article must be corrected to conform with reality. --Kudpung (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The source you list is a press release from CBS. After seeing it, I actually found the press release on CBS's website. I changed the source to point to the CBS site, but was told that many people in countries other than the US cannot access the CBS website. See here for the reversion of my change. I then started a discussion at the Pump here because I wanted to try to verify what I was being told. The discussion wasn't wholly satisfying, but because I had confirmed that the derivative site mirrored precisely the release on the CBS site, I accepted it and let go. Plus, at least more than one person was telling me they couldn't access the CBS site.


 * So, with all that detail (probably more than you wanted to know) and assuming that CBS has officially confirmed the cancellation, what do you think about my issue? (BTW, you don't have to go to the trouble to put a TB tag on my Talk page - I'm watching yours.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's like I said, historical 'facts' should never be reported in an encyclopedia before they happen - to do so would defeat the philosophy of encyclopedia building. However, as there is now only a week to go, I suggest not making too much fuss about it. I don't think you are out of step at all, but we all get moments when we feel we are being brow beaten by other editors. Kudpung (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much where I come out after I step back from it. Thanks for listening and for the advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * JISBELL24 has now been blocked. Kudpung (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Added some 'notability' links and references to the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine
Hi Kudpung, A few weeks ago you flagged up that the page for the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine needed some more 'notability' links and references to enhance the page. I have added some of these and cleaned up the text a bit. I hope this is now better - can you review please?! Many thanks, Benjicott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjicott (talk • contribs) 14:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks OK now. Good references, thanks for taking care of it. I have removed the tags. --Kudpung (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Regards, Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjicott (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Category question
Sorry if this is a dumb question, I've never edited categories before. In this change, I removed some seemingly strange wikilinks on the Categories, eg. to just. Was there a reason those were there, or was it right to take them off? Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You did the right thing. Cats should not be piped to display  differently.--Kudpung (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a way I can automate moves? I want to move everything currently in to  Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It can probably be done with AWB (I think), but  you would need to  get  permission  to  use it. If AWB can't  do  it, you'd need to  get  a one-time bot to do it for you. However, unless you  made the original  category  yourself, a unilateral change of this kind could be controversial and should not  be done without  consensus. You  would need to  make your suggestions on  the talk  pages of the project(s)  that  provide the brolly for these topics. I  would suggest  reading up  on WP:CAT before you  do  anything  drastic. Kudpung (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC).


 * The categories were piped to list the articles in a different order on the category page - all bats were together, all gibbons were together, although there appears to be nothing about this use of sort keys in the Manual of Style - maybe it was something from one of the Wikiprojects (piping doesn't affect the appearance of categories in articles). Peter E. James (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also there's something  wrong  with  the nav  template on  that  page -  its collapse (show/hide) function is not working.Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, There is something  about  somewhere about  using  piped names for cats, but  it's not  in  the MOS. They  may  makethe cat page look  more organised, but  it will only  work  if everyone does it  for  those cats. The be"st  way  to  keep  a cat  page organised is probably  with  the DEFAULTSORT  template. Kudpung (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Bearian/Standards
Thank you for that list. I linked yours to mine. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Toots5446
Hi Kudpung! Thanks you for your reviews on Elie_Bursztein and your introductory message on my talk page. I am not entierly new to WP though, I was a regular on the french one back in the good old days. My profile on WP:FR is there: Toots5446 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Toots. We're a lot stricter here on references than the fr.Wiki, especially with WP:BLP :) Kudpung (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see.. I am not entierly sure that I understand what is meant by "reliable third-party publications". To me, papers published in peer-reviwed did fit this picture but apparently I am wrong.  Thus, I an not sure either about what is intended for secondary sources. Are research articles related to his work relevant? Additionaly, I found a couple of press cover of his work on google such as  (BBC)  (ZDNET) and  (MIT technology review). Does that qualify better? Thanks for your help. Toots5446 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC one seems OK, but not the others. sources must contain more than just a mention  of the subject's name. They  don't necessarily need to  be entirely  about  the person, but they  must  contain enough information  that  is useful to the biography and clearly demonstrates why the person is notable. ZNET and MIT don't  quqlify  for this article. The links you need to  our en.Wiki policies are WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:V. If there is anyting  else you  need to  know, don't  hesitate to  ask  me. --Kudpung (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, I think I'm starting to get it. I am currently at work but I will go over the page later and enhance it. Toots5446 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Frank Stewart (disambiguation)
Dear Kudpung: Thanks for your diligent assistance! MusiCitizen (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cooper Middle School (California)
Hey, it was nice of you to put a note on my page, but no need to concern yourself. I certainly don't take personally what anyone says in a deletion discussion! As for the significance (or not) of that school's news coverage, you may very well be right that it's not sufficient. I was just objecting to your apparent dismissal of respected regional newspapers as a Reliable Source. If you doubt that something called the Fresno Bee could possibly be a regional newspaper, let me explain that it serves an area 220 miles in length and 40-60 miles in width with a population of more than 3 million people. BTW while I do enjoy article rescue, it doesn't affect my opinions at AfD. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, but I vote "delete" on the vast majority of AfDs. (Most of them are SOOOO deserving of deletion!) See you around Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, that why  articles land up  at  AfD. It's just  a shame that  those of us who  send them  there or !vote 'delete' get  branded as deletionists. With  the Fresno Bee you  strike a chord,  and I  stand corrected.  One dimension that  many  Wikipedians find hard to grasp is that  of regionality. I've travelled the world and lived and worked for very long  periods in  many  countries, but never the USA, and even I tend to forget sometimes that the area you describe is larger/more populous than even some European countries. Therefore even the expression  'national  coverage' has to  be taken in  perspective. Take care, and thanks for looking in. --Kudpung (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Evesham
You asked me to look at Evesham. I spent some time on this reluctantly, found that had been unnecessary for Evesham article per se, but did find very problematic issue described in detail at WP:Verifiability I am beginning to get a bit concerned. Wiki-legalists block wording that seems to be common sense and innocuous, whilst allowing major error. And no-one seems concerned. If you have any comments, could you put them on the Epidemic Error posting. I am forbidden to go from using counts of citations in Web of Science, because this is synthesis, but an Editor can synthesize incorrectly from enumeration in one title to enumeration in another without understanding underlying principles. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning students on a Wikipedia article
G'day Kudpung. Started a discussion at Talk:Concordia_College,_Adelaide regarding mention of student names in that article. I'm sure there's a rule or policy in regards to mentioning potentially underage students on a wikipedia article, beyond WP:WPSCH/AG. Being that you have some experience in this area, I'm hoping that you know where to find it? - danjel  (talk to me) 10:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Danj. You can add WP:BIO, WP:BLP to that  list on  the talk page. Basically, names of people should not  be mentioned in  any  Wikipedia article if they  themselves are not  notable, or don't have their own Wkipedia page, or are not sourced according  to  WP:RS and WP:V. A good test  for this is the 'Notable residents' sections of pages about  places. School  articles are about  the school  and not  about  its individual staff  or students. Wikipedia policies are hierarchical, a local  consensus cannot  override a higher one. Guidelines on  the other hand are a grey area, but  if they  have been largely  followed by  the community  it  would be unwise to  do  otherwise. --Kudpung (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah... I figured that (in regards to WP:NLIST), but I'll add them. I think that User:Pdfpdf asserts ownership of the article. *shrug* Cheers. - danjel  (talk to me) 11:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't shrug, because WP:OWN: All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article, is a fundamental principle and one of the highest policies of building this encyclopedia. If I come across anyone flaunting that rule, I would firmly but politely come down on them like a ton of bricks, and not  be afraid to do so, whoever they are, but  I would have to have very good evidence as to  the the claims of ownership. --Kudpung (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree.. As to evidence:


 * Dear Danjel, please use the word "we" with CONSIDERABLY more thought. As it happens, the  "we" who maintain this page  DO mention students on wikipedia.
 * from edit summary [] (emph. added)


 * In case you hadn't noticed, (obviously you hadn't looked or thought),  this page HAS the consensus of the people who are maintaining it.  So please bugger-off and, if you must, go waste other people's time.  We  who maintain this page are perfectly happy with it like it is.
 * from his response to my section at Talk:Concordia_College,_Adelaide (emph. added)


 * I've brought it up with this user before (on another article which he jealously guarded against any attempts at consistency). I think the issue's under control, though. Cheers. - danjel  (talk to me) 12:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers
Most of the authors of our school  pages are what  we call WP:SPA, and they all  have a theoretical  COI -  they  are mostly  students or staff and  if they  didn't  write these articles, we wouldn't have many  pages about  schools at all. With your knowledge of policies and editing  techniques, I  see no  problem in  you  writing  as many  school  articles as you  like, even if you  were, for example, the regional  schools superintendent. I've also written  a bunch  of articles on  schools I'm  connected with. --Kudpung (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I work as a consultant for the public schools in my state, so I have strong connections with a number of schools. I try to stay away from schools where I spend a significant amount of time. I'm just very mindful of coming across as promoting a school. I've seen articles written by SPA with conflicts of interest, and they're mostly rubbish requiring a lot of cleaning up. I'm not interested in going down that path, consciously or subconsciously.


 * I'm working on User:Danjel/Rose Bay Secondary College at the moment, with the view that my close link with them is likely to cease in May this year. After that, I'll probably ask some other editors to pass an eye over it and move it out of my userspace. I also want to DYK the bit about the magnet program, but the reliable sources are a bit thin on the ground (I have one self published report from the program coordinators and a brief TV mention that I'm not going to even bother with) at the moment until we (and a couple of other schools in the area) publish our annual school reports for 2010.


 * I'm also working on write ups for the Networks of schools in the Sydney Region (User:Danjel/Botany_Bay_Network and User:Danjel/Georges_River_Network are done, User:Danjel/Inner_City_Network is what I'm currently working on). Once I have the region done, then I'll ask WP:EIA for comments and then put it up too. I think it'd be better to redirect to these than to localities (I think I've told you about Greenwich Public School before).


 * Thanks for the encouragement. - danjel  (talk to me) 02:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you Mind?
Hi, we'll, I've seen you around, and interacted with you, so if you wouldn't mind, could you "review my editing"? I had an ER, but I would value your opinion about my editing etc here on the ol 'pedia. I don't plan on running for adminship for some time, and I am currently being coached. What can I improve on, how have I done so far? Thanks Kudpung. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been taking a close interest in your editing for a long time. I think you are probably a very  young Wikipdian but I have always been impressed with the maturity with which you conduct your interaction with fellow users. Your editing is on the right track - there's nothing particular that needs pointing out. You learn about your errors from the messages people leave on your talk  page like they do to all of us of all ages and experience,  and it's an on-going process. However, avoid digging yourself too deep in controversial areas such as ANI and other top level dispute resolution boards if you are not directly involved - follow them by all means and use them as a homework assignment. Step up your participation on AfD debates (I'll let you know if you  are off track), and put in as much good NPP as you can after reading everything here and here. I think  you've made you  point often enough on the RfA talk page, and maybe it's time to  consider throttling  back a little bit there. Do however, continue to !vote intelligently and civilly  on RfA and show some of the older and more experienced !voters the right way to behave! But avoid piling on with 'optional' questions if  you  can - that's one area that many of us would like to see heavily restricted. In my opinion, those questions aren't really necessary because any !voter who has done his/her homework properly should already know all s/she needs to know about  the candidate, and will be able to make a judgment call independent of extra questions, and the !voting pattern of the other participants. FWIW, it takes me around an hour or even longer to research and make up my mind before I !vote. Remember also  that on  Wikipedia, people are very  quick to  jump  to  wrong conclusions, one is that they tend to identify  what they consider to be a lust for power. The irony is, that such criticism  often comes from the power hungry people themselves. All the best, and never hesitate to come to this page if you need any  advice on  anything, and there's also a lot of useful stuff on my user pages. --Kudpung (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to your second comment here, would you mind filling me in, thanks. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, the best  way  to  be involved with  a discussion like that is to follow all  of it, all of the time. Where these 'perennial' discussions never lead to progress is because so many  people chip in without knowing what has been previously  discussed - a typical  example is User:Protonk who leaps in with a TLDR speech, but does not offer one single solution then complains at me because I have the decency - and the civility - not to name names, and not to  take his bait. I always have a distrust for admins who can't keep a civil tongue in  their heads. The real reason, and it's been confirmed dozens of times, why people won't run for office (whatever year they  started editing  the Wikipedia),  is because they  are just  not prepared to  go  through  the ordeal that RfA has become. Period. With  the exception  of two or three who  failed on technicalities in  2010/2011, all  the others that  failed shouldn't  even have wasted our time with  their applications anyway. I  mean, just  look  through them. Many people want to be admins for all the wrong reasons -  some even join  Wikipedia with  the intention of wanting  to  be an admin as soon  as possible. Take a deep breath, look back, and try to figure out why, for example I have never run for adminship in spite of my  maturity (61, retired professor), 26,000 edits since 2006, squeaky clean record (no  warnings, blocks, or deleted files or pages), civility, clue, and helpfulness (WP:EAR - 350 user questions answered), balanced involvement  in  Wikpedia policy  development (NPP,  BLP, 100 page creations and some GA, and micromanaging  a major project). Then you  have the answer. Keep  the questions coming :) Kudpung (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood -- you know, I think you'd be one fine admin, we need more of you around here. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 03:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words Tofu. Another tip: before answering a comment from anyone you don't  know, or tagging a page, always check out their user page, edit count, and editor/sysop status. It will slow down your productivity a bit, but it's something I always do. It's like code switching, we adjust what we say and how we say it to the person whom we are addressing, bearing in mind of course that  on Wikipedia, 1,000s of people are looking on - we're all in one mega fish bowl here. Words are a wonderful tool when used wisely. You have the gift, use it carefully - Wikipedia is not Hogwarts ;) Kudpung (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I use a tool called popups. You can enable it in your preferences, whenever you hover over a Wikilink it gives a preview -- when you hover over a signaure -- it gives you there edit count, registration date, and permissions. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 03:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I use it all the time, especially when going daily through the 5,000 or so pages on my watchlist - it's good for checking out the new diffs without having to load the pages. But for editor background, I prefer to see the mess their user page is in, it tells a lot about their personality, and to access their block logs and NPP patrols. I use X tools for a complete breakdown of contributions, creations, !votes on RfA, AfD, etc.Kudpung (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to correspond with  my  activity. I  have followed the instructions as requested. --Kudpung (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good, I am excited, we always need more active community members to help! Sadads (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Example
Is this and example of an unneeded question at an RFA, just to take up space? I think so. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohh look, another even more useless question by the same user in March. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to give you that orange bar again, but looking through all that users contributions, most of thier additions are bogus questions on RFA's... T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you've singled those questions out as being  possibly  silly, then you  probably  have good reason to consider them so. Others may disagree on grounds that it is fair to introduce comic relief into RfA. If it were my  RfA, I would ignore those questions without  even commenting on them - even if it would ultimately lead to my defeat due to the inevitable pile-on 'opposes'  my  refusal to answer might generate. If I were a 'crat, I would probably consider striking them through, and risk the consequences of being accused of acting out of process. If they are frequent, and the editor in question does little else around the Wikipedia, I might open an RfC on his/her behaviour (it might after all set a precedent for getting some aspects of RfA cleaned up). However, those are only  my opinions, but you are probably  already  guessing that I have a low tolerance for civility and inappropriate contributions to discussions and debates, whether they are baseless edits bordering on disruption, or cleverly cloaked as intelligent remarks.  You can easily find out who poses questions that could possibly  be considered inappropriate by  checking through the RfA from 2010 like I  did; when you  see suspect questions, check out the editor's history, and formulate an opinion as to whether you  consider his/her participation to  be a net  positive to  the RfA process, or even to Wikipedia in general. It  will  also  help you  establish  your own thresholds for what you  expect  from  others for pertinence, responsibility, and civility,  and how you react to them. Kudpung (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did some further research on the user, and found that is all their contributions are. Going to RFA's and posting stupid questions, or opposing people based on their religion, or with no rationale at all. Their was an RFC on this user over a year ago, and this user has done little to no content work, just RFA's. I posted on their talk page, I don't think I will get a response. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 16:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm well acquainted with the history. There have been some warnings, but it's not  not worth kicking up a fuss about. The danger is however, that if you  uspset them, when it's your turn for RfA there's a risk they'll oppose you, and so long as RfA is a pure !vote counting  exercise cloaked in  a lot of nastiness, there's not  much a closing  'crat  is going to do about it. You've probably noticed by  now that I am one of the main proponents for change at RfA. Kudpung (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He can oppose a future RFA of mine all he wants. But I'm not sure how much credit he will get when he puts Oppose This person bothers me because of how I act on RFA's. You should not be an admin. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK )''' 18:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It did it again, boy, I really want to make that RFC... T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 22:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Before you do, some of the things you  can take into  consideration  are the outcomes of any  previous RfC, because you  will  be taken to  task on them;   evaluate the consensus among  the posters on the user's talk  page, and evaluate carefully  how you  think the user's RfA !votes may have influenced the pattern of !voting by  other editors. You  might  come to the conclusion as I  mentioned above, that  it's not  worth getting excited about. On  the other hand, you  will  have researched the problem  more thoroughly than I  have and you  may  well  conclude otherwise.Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep -- but the thing is, if all you do is vote in RFA's and seem to serve no "other" purpose, then, well, you know. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, decisions at noticeboards are extraordinarily forgiving. See for example how sockpuppets are allowed to accept the 'special offer' (a kind of plea bargain) with impunity. One of the very few nasty encounters I  ever had with  an editor was with  a former sockmaster who  had created literally 1,000s of one-line, inadequately  referenced BLP  stubs. For some reason, being allowed to remain active caused them  to  adopt a pompous 'holier than thou' attitude and still claim that they  have created 'thousand of articles'. Before you wonder if I've gone completely  off topic (or off my  mind), it  may  be worth considering that  such  posting  on RfA may  be by  a sock  of another user who  otherwise makes a lot  of valuable edits to  the 'pedia. There was indeed a recent RfA where a confirmed sockpuppet  made an extremely  poignant  and long  'oppose' statement that  actually  contributed to a worthy  candidate (IMHO, of course) failing  to  be promoted. Sockpuppetry is a serious Wiki  crime for the very  fact  that  socks use their accounts to  influence opionion and the !voting  on  debates and discussions. I've discovered several. Socks often go unnoticed for a very  long time - usually  until they  make a mistake and a sharp-witted user notices. Once the suspicion is raised, it's relatively easy  to  prove. WP:CU have tools that for some reason are regarded as a closely guarded secret here, but  that  every  web developer uses perfectly  legally in  standard web design. They can identify the very  machine, the operating system and version, the browser and version, and the log-in time. Discovering socks and making them  accountable is a fascinating  area of Wikipedia, especially  when reading  the feeble denials they  make when found out. See this recent  example where we possibly have to undo 100s of creations. Theoretically, though, all creations by  sockpuppets can be summarily  deleted, whether good or not. It depends on  the amount of time and waste of HR it  would take to unravel the mess and salvage anything useful. Sometimes SPI take place in special places and we might not necessarily hear about  it. I'm not  in  favour of making  witch hunts our primary objectives, but if we want to be admins, apart from being a role model and leading by example by being sharp-witted, unruffled, and super civil, we also need to exceptionally vigilant. That's also one of the reasons why I make such a fuss about doing WP:NPP properly, and instigating  new features to  make it  run  more smoothly. It's also one of the places where one can catch some smelly socks in the closet. Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what your saying, and I agree. I'm sure something will come up, but it's been two years of this nonsense. I'm not going to comment about if this user is/is not a sockpuppet. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 13:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't  need to - I only mentioned it as an example so that you can see how odd behaviour can often be a sign  of something  more sinister, and can sometimes be worth  investigating. Kudpung (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: RfA
My interpretation of your prior post was that you believed that "silly and/or trick questions" were having a direct influence on the success rate of RfAs. My belief is that while there may be people that vote on this basis, those numbers are still outweighed by the number of people who support with no explanation whatsoever, on what appears to be a similarly flimsy basis. I retain that view, but certainly apologise if you feel that I've misrepresented your point. Regards, —WFC— 14:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi WSC. I agree with your comment on the unqualified support !votes. However, my areas of concern are focused on  the silly and/or trick questions and civility  issues, and how they  are deterring  editors of the right  calibre from  accepting  our suggestions to  to  run  for office. By  pure coincidence, the message above might be of interest. --Kudpung (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Katimavik Elementary School (2nd nomination)
I didn't know there'd been a previous AFD until after I hit the button (blasted Twinkle). In any event, I figure an AFD will ensure that any future attempt to recreate will be speedily redirected per G4. Blueboy96 22:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's OK. Unless you often get involved with school articles there is probably no reason  why  you  should be aware that there are a few different guidelines affecting schools. The most important thing is that you have identified and drawn attention to  an article that  needs some special treatment. --Kudpung (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)