User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2012

Fauré and others
Thank you for your kind remarks about my Fauré piano music article. As no good deed goes unpunished, I wonder I can interest you in the current peer review of Charles Villiers Stanford whose article I have in absence of mind built up into something that has a possible look of FA about it. Quite understand if you're not interested, but any comments will be gratefully received. Happy new year! Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy  to  Tim, but  don't  be surprised if I am  unable to  make any  suggestions for improvement ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Buddha Putra - Rahul  (Talk)  16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ben Breedlove
There are constant SPA's voting on this debate, majority of them unregistered/non-autoconfirmed. Would semi-protecting this debate be necessary? -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 09:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. In  the meantime, feel  free to  put  the SPA tag on them if you  are sure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No need. It's slowed down a lot since I placed the message on the talk  page earlier today. The closing  admin  won't  count those votes anyway. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed
Hi Kudpung, just doing a spot of NPP'ing and came across Smith Wildman and Jennie (Hearne) Brookhart House. I can't find any specific guidelines on architectural notability. Do you know if 'registered historic buildings' have any inherent notability? Or is it a case of must satisfy the WP:GNG? Pol430 talk to me 15:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty  sure that  listed buildings are considered notable, but  don't  quote me on it. I  would personally  keep it  and slap  'refimprove' tag on  it and make sure it  has a stub tag and cats. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an essay here. It's a proposal that  didn't  get  consensus either way (a bit  like schools), but  it's still  a reasonable guideline. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, It's already got a stub tag on it but added refimprove Pol430  talk to me 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year and other
May the next twelve months bring little bronze stars and green circles to many of Wikipedia's articles.

On a different note, I recall you saying that you used a Mac. Well, has managed to package the latest version of AWB for Mac. Happy AWB-ing, → Σ  τ  c. 01:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Mac needs Wine installing for AWB to  work. Wine is not  as stable on  Mac as is claimed and I'm  not  about  to  mess with  any of my  Macs to  find out. That  said, I  still  cannot  find any  links to  a Mac-native version  of AWB -  can you  link me to  where you  found it? All the best  to  you  as well  for 2012. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD
is probably worth going back to. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like Hellknows came across the same websites that I did. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Help me get that article published
Instead of constantly speeding deleting it, help me get it published. Reality show winners of notable television shows deserve to have their own articles.MouthlessBobcat (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia decides who deserves to  have an article, and it  depends on following  the rules - that's the downside of being  'the encyclopedia anyone can edit'.  If  you  read the policies you  have been linked to, and in additon  check  what  kind of sources are required at  WP:RS, and how biographies of living  people must  be sources in  order to  assert notability  WP:BLP, and then write the article in  your own words, you'll  do  fine. If the article is so  important  to  you, I'm  sure you  won't  mind all  the reading. Good luck. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

can you review this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MouthlessBobcat/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by MouthlessBobcat (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. Please remember to  sign  your posts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Progressive WOWI-FM Proposed Merger
Good Day! We need a little advice. Recently created the article Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75 to chart the history during those years of a radio station. There is a proposed merger by Neutralhomer to perhaps link it to the current (and different) WOWI-FM article, an existing station. Who decides on a merger and what can we do to try to prevent it? thanks,Davidjbrown321 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone can propose a merge at any  time. The decision  will  be made by a consensus reached by  the participants  in  a  debate where users can express their views for or against  the proposed merge.  I  have started the debate for you  at  Talk:Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Might be of interest to you
I've just boldly added a discussion fork to this RfC which might be of interest to you. Pol430 talk to me 15:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. In principle, I  think it's an excellent  idea and it's one that  I  already  suggested as part of a bundle of NPP reforms that  would include NPPers needing  a user right,  and that  commuting  the now redundant  'Reviewer' to  'Page Patroller' might  be a possible shortcut  to  the right in  order to avoid implementing  some new selection  process.  There are however three  main snags: First, the reviewer right  was handed out  very  indiscriminately based on  some digital metric rather than experience and/or competency - you  just  woke up  one morning  and you  saw 'You are now a reviewer!' on  your talk  page. Yes, NPP is desperately  understaffed, and the argument  that  it's because it doesn't  give the operators a hat  to  wear could be very  true; on  the other hand there is a huge lobby  against  it  being  a right because many  would see their unqualified right  to  tinker with  new articles taken away  from  them. The third reason is that  the RfC is simply  ill-timed. We're on  the verge of publishing the NPP survey  I  ran two  months ago, and its result will  have an important  impact on  how your sub-RfC works out. I just  hope the WMF will  get  the results of my  survey  out  in  time before the food drops off your fork. I'll  be watching  closely, but  I'll  probably  not  chime in  until I  see which  way  the consensus is going and when I  can use the results of the survey  as ammunition. All that  said, I laud your initiative, and I'm  glad it's you  who  has gone ahead with  it  -  I'm  rather  trying  to  slip  into  the background for a while after having  unwittingly  been pretty much in  the forefront  of some major projects over the past  few months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You make good points, I hadn't considered the timing aspect. I would support the mass removal of the reviewer flag (including my own) to be granted on an 'evidence of competence' basis, but I didn't want to add that to the proposal in the interests of keeping discussion on the idea in general, rather than who gets a new hat. I anticipate it will come in for some criticism, but hey-ho :) Pol430  talk to me 17:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Guidance for younger editors
Could you please explain the problem with it? Apologies if my initial message was not taken in the spirit it was intendended in, but come on, a template, really? Egg Centric 17:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit wars
Thanks for your intervention on the Bullis Charter School edit war. You might be interested to know that there is a related war on the Los Altos School District page. --Flashcube (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

French article translation
Can you help me tranlsate fr:Prince Punuari'i Teri'itapunui Pomare and fr:Prince Teri'itua Tuavira Joinville Pomare?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but only  if you  find referenced sources for them  first. The French Wikipedia is not  so  strict  on  sources as we are. If  you  can find sources that  are in  French I  be happy  to  check  them out. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am no fan of the French articles either because those articles have very few real information outside of dates and names. But they can serve as a basis for some future expansion I plan to do in the future with other similiar articles. I think the main source used were from http://www.royalark.net/Tahiti/tahiti.htm which in turn is largely based on Teuira Henry, John Muggridge Orsmond (1928). Ancient Tahiti. 48. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum and other books provided there. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may  make a suggestion, althoiugh  there are a couple of editors who  do  nothing  else but  mass create stubs they  have taken from  other Wikis, and leave a template inviting  other editors to  expand and clean them up. I'm  not  in  favour of it. Creating  your own  articles from  scratch, or translating  articles that  have some substance would gain you  a lot  of kudos. If you  would like an example of the kind  of translating  that  I  welcome as a challenge, see Brontë which  took me perhaps 100 hours because the French version  was in  such  a mess -  and I still  got no credit  for  it  although I was expressly asked to do it. Fortunately I  don't  give a toss for barnstars ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about fr:Histoire de la Polynésie française? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but at  the end of the day, I  prefer to  pick translation  of   topics that  interest  me. 19th  century  English  literature is one of them, Classical  Mucic composers is another. But  that  said, since I  have now set myself some meta tasks at  Wikipedia and WikiMedia, pure content  work  is something  I  do a lot  less of these days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok...thanks...--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ben Breedlove
Thanks for putting the SPA tag on Insaneinnixa in WP:Articles for deletion/Ben Breedlove. I decided I would let it pass as there is one other edit on another subject, so gave them the benefit of the doubt. I personally think the debate has got out of hand and pity the poor admin who has to agree on the consensus, so I've told everyone to take it to my talk page. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  12:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

my response to you
my response tp you on editor assistance, please respond here not there.

dhi kudpung. if this page is the wrong forum for this then why are you continuing to discuss it here, and not in some more appropriate forum? also the discussion was done and i thought it was over until you updated this AND notified me of this on my talk page which means i should respond right? i asked a simple question here and its only because toddsp1 decided to bring the dispute to this page that it continued here at all. i also dont like your accusation that the majority of my edits are complains about other editors. according to more than half of my edits are to articles. only in the past few days have i even gone into this area of wikipedia where users seem to interact more. the same cant be said of you, so if youre going to tell someone to build articles, maybe it should be someone who has less article edits percentage than you? im sorry but your response seems to ill-enformed and inflammatory that i had to respond to it. please let this all stop now. i am going to copy this to your talk page please respond there since as you say this is not the appropriate place for this discussion. Bouket (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of your edits (I've checked them all), including  the one above, are either inflammatory or messing with the workings of Wikipedia in  areas you  don't  understand yet. With  only 200 edits,  you still have a lot  to  learn about  Wikipedia, and it  seems that you  you  still  haven't even learned to  take advice. Please really start  taking  some advice now,  and if you  want  to  foster good relations  here, stop  telling me, other admins, and other editors what  to do  or how to  behave. Start  assuming  good faith, read the Five pillars, read WP:BOOMERANG, and understand that  trying to get the last  word all  the time won't help - remember what  Drmies said about  digging  your self in  deeper.  I'm an univolved observer and a regular helper at  WP:EAR -  and I'm  asking you to now to read THIS too, and give it  a rest. If you  would like  some advice or help anytime on  contributing  to articles, don't hesitate to ask me here - I  don't  bite newbies ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * i was already planning to drop the issue until you brought it up. and if you ask me you seem like you are biting now. and if you take offense at that its your problem not mine since someone with genuine nice feelings would try harder to not bite and not get angry. i get the message that trying to help aditya out in the ani was a bad idea. thanks. Bouket (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only problem I sometimes have is getting  people to  take good and well meant advice. I most  certainly  will  start  biting if you  won't  read all the advice pages you've been linked to - and here's another. Please read my  talk  page notice too! -  and this if it  fits the case. If you  want  help  editing  article pages at  any  time, or understanding  policies, my offer still stands,  I'm actually  rather good at  it ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * you are sending mixed messages. your response says 'last comment from me' but in the comment you say i can ask you for help understanding policies. i kept trying to give this issue a rest because im sick of it. i was just trying to help someone out who i thought was right in complaining about getting a warning when the other user involved in the edit war did not get a warning. even though maybe i dont know everything it looks like if i didnt say anything at ani then we wouldnt have understood why the user thought there was bias. so i think i did ok thanks. im done with all this ridiculous stuff and will not go into talk pages anymore and wont edit except for stuff im researching. if i broke any policies at ani that toddst1 didnt also break by bringing up the issue many times after i said i was done then tell me what. you even responded to the EAR thing even though i said not to respond there, and all you said was that you werent going to respond there. can you really not understand how this seems combatative? Bouket (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the time since my  previous post you  can't  possibly have read the pages you  were linked to. I  feel  now that  I  have done all  I  can to  help  you for the time being, and if you  would like  any  further assistance please  don't  come back here until you  have done some serious reading. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * i wont. can i ask you to please not get involved in a discussion that has been done for 2.5 hours and restarting arguments in the wrong venue like you did here ? see WP:HORSEMEAT and trying to also WP:AGF that someone might be doing something to help someone they feel is being attacked. thanks. dont respond to this and i wont have to respond to you. Bouket (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I don't consider myself ready. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
To be honest, even figuring out how to respond to you was not easy for me. I appreciate very much your help and direction. I want to be a contributing member here and not just a one issue person. It just happens that this particular issue, Ben's page, is something that I am devoting everything I can to..I believe in it, and in what has happened because of him. I truly do not mean to be disrespectful to other members, but find that I see room for interpretation in many policies and...I'm finding that I have a problem with the jabs flying around. I hear what you are saying about the page not being the place to argue about the policies...but that seems to get folded into things when people can look at the very same words and see different things. I am not ashamed to say that I am literally praying that this page does not get deleted. There was a huge impact here and I did take the time to read approximately 600-800 messages left to Ben on places like Legacy.om and on his Breedlove tv channel. It is not cliche stuff; it is real, poignant, and in many cases very specific examples of how he changed their lives. To me, it is also noteworthy when thousands of teenagers risk peer judgement to leave such messages. This is a phenomenon that happens to fall within the category of something making things better. I hope that has a place in cultural history at Wikipedia. As for navigating through this new world here at Wikipedia...I'm more confused than I have ever been. That in itself is enough to make a person a one issue member, but I am going to keep trying. Again, thank you for your polite and kind way of trying to educate someone like me...who probably seems like a freakish hot mess. TinaPetersontinam (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tina. With all due respect  for the deceased, I have no personal interest in the topic, and having remained strictly neutral,  I may even be the administrator who chooses to  assess and pronounce the consensus when the 7 days have run their course (a challenge indeed, because it is one of the longest and most complex debates of its kind). I understand your concern for all  the rules we have around here; there are in  fact  around 5,000 pages of them including  their various essays that  discuss and produce them. Wikipedia has indeed become a huge bureaucracy over the years, and it  isn't  helped by  all  the newcomers (no  disrepect to  yourself) who launch into meta areas and try  to  change things  unilaterally in ignorance of the mechanisms that  exist  for bringing  change about. That  said, the rules for creating  and contributing  to  articles are fairly  simple, and there are plenty  of help  desks and experienced people who  can be of assistance. Let  the rules and regulations not  daunt  your enthusiasm  - if you  want  to  shortcut the advice pages your are most  welcome to  come to  my  talk  page anytime, as many  do, and I  look  very much  forward to  seeing  your future contributions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please consider that if it is the longest and most complex debates of its kind as you said, that alone might make the subject something that should be kept. Even if temporarily to review again at a later date. I understand what you are saying about newcomers, I really do. But please understand that as someone like me tries to put input on a deletion discussion page...and in good faith tries to follow all the written guidelines for that...we don't know the mistakes we are making until they are pointed out. Please understand that someone like me is not trying to wreak havok on Wikipedia, but really trying to do what I understood to be the proper way of trying to stop a page from deletion. As with any debate, I understand that emotionally reacting to certain comments is wrong. Thanks. Petersontinam (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Tina, I have never suggested for a moment  that  you are 'wreaking  havok'. On  the contrary, I  quite understand how you  feel about  this article, and you  are fully  entitled to  express your opinion  at  the debate. As I  mentioned before, when the seven days are up, an uninvolved admin will  review the discussion and taking  our  policies into  account will make an objective assessment  of the community's consensus. Until  then, all we can do  is wait. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, please let me clear that up...I didn't mean that you thought I was..I was afraid that I was. I guess that is what is hard about the written word and not seeing someone's face. Petersontinam (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Redundant articles?
Hi Kudpung, I've been patrolling the NP log lately, and I've spotted a several creations of (to me) redundant articles by user Toto le chat. They've been creating articles like 2012 in Romania, 1992 in Russia, 2012 in Moldova and 2012 in Denmark. I don't think what the purposes of these articles are, when there are categories like Category:2012 in Denmark and Category:1992 in Russia; that articles like that cannot be written in prose anyway, and have to be lists, which is essentially the job of categories. What do you think? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh golly! I'm really  no  expert on lists and cats. Nevertheless you  raise a very  interesting  and probably important point that  may  have a site-wide impact, and I  suggest you (or we) should consider which  should be the best  venue for it  to  be discussed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How about Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the right place. Consider posting there the same or a similar message as your one above to me. I'll put it on my watchlist and check in from time to time, and if I understand what is going on, I'll offer a comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:POLA
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:POLA. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Article on John Lautner
I am asking your advice on which places are the most helpful towards my first editing. My deceased Husband's Grandfather was John Lautner.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lautner John's daughter Karol is my Mother-in-law and President of the John Lautner Foundation. I am an Advisor on the Board. Karol has mentioned that there are many facts which are not correct in her Dad's article and wishes for me to change them. Of course I am going to read everything I can find here on editing first, but I wondered if you could guide me to the most helpful pages to read. thank you! Petersontinam (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not complicated, simply bear in  mind our WP:COI policy, for editing subjects you are connected with and ensure that all important  facts are sourced per WP:RS and WP:V. Formatting, style, and citation  system you  will  be able to  glean from reviewing the page in  edit  mode - be sure to  read WP:ES and make appropriate edit summaries. I  hope this helps and if you  have any  further questions, don't  hesitate to  ask. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, she will be pointing out the incorrect facts to me within the next few days. She is aware that there must be references and sources. I feel silly to say this, but I am nervous about it...Petersontinam (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to be nervous at all. If you prefer to err on the side of caution however, you could consider putting your intended changes in your Sandbox and asking me to review them before you add them to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead with Uncle Mike's date of death. Karol is busy until Sunday due to part of the Lautner exhibit in our neck of the woods ending tomorrow...then she will be able to give it her full attention. I'm not sure if his date of death needed an extra reference? It seems like a fact that wouldn't be a conflict of interest. Also, I did read what you wrote and followed the links. Learned much. Thank you.Petersontinam (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Quality questions
You might also want to ask, who does much at WP:FLC, to look at the article and comment on it too (and ask him some of the same questions). As to the questions: 1) With over 150 entries, is it viable or necessary to make a table? I do not think it is necessary to have tables. If the list can be split into sections, it may be easier to have tables in the article. 2) Can FUR be used for images of people for whom it is no longer possible to obtain photos? I think so, although I owuld limit the number of fair use images as much as possible. 2) Are referenced extracts of the school register acceptable as RS? I am not 100% sure what the school register is. I assume it is some sort of official document of the school and so I think it would be OK - has it been published? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I'll bear them in mind and I'll also ask TLM if he would take a quick look. A school register is just a book or a file that records list the joining and leaving dates of each pupil. It's probably all done on computers nowadays. It's not 'public' information per se, but there's no reason why anyone can't ask to peruse it for a good reason. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK< it is a primary source, so I would not make too much of it, but using it as a ref for dates at the school seems OK to me. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please see my sandbox?
I just could not figure out how to use reference tools. All I could do was post a link. Also, I don't know if the quotation is too long, so as to be like copying and pasting. Please help!Petersontinam (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I know you don't suffer fools gladly, and I know I am smack dab in the middle of the fool category right now, but when you get a chance later I hope you can help me in my sandbox...which is ironically about the age I feel right now I am so confused. thanksPetersontinam (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be so  self disparaging! I  will  certainly take a look later today when I  have had my  breakfast and gone through  my  overnight  watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is tuff stuff for a newcomer. There is etiquette here that is unknown..until you mess up...and ways to enter information that are truly difficult and very foreign to me. I'm having a hard time with it. What is also tough is perusing many talk pages (while trying to learn technical info) and seeing so many nasty arguments and vicious comments. I have read things from newcomers who high-tailed it out of here, quickly, because it was not worth the agony. You can see how intimidating that is, right? It doesn't seem isolated. From the many comments I have seen, it is scary to even ask a question and I'm not usually that way. Thin skinned, yes, but usually never afraid to ask a question in order to learn. Petersontinam (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Follow all the blue links) Well,  you  can be assured that  I am  one of the most  friendly  and helpful people around here ;)  unless of course I  have to  deal  with  really  recalcitrant newcomers who  after a short while appear to  be here exclusively  to  vandalise, disrupt, promote themselves or their business, push  personal  opinions, or are always nasty. Such  people invariably  end up  getting  blocked. 'Tis true, there is an awful  lot of incivility  here, even from  mature people with  PhDs (they  may  be some of the worst!). A well  known Internet  phenomenon  is that  the anonymity  it affords brings out  the alter-ego  in  people à la Jekyll and Hyde. Some of them would appear to be plainly  misanthropist; some are persistently  unpleasant  in  the way  they  go  about their work here, while they  excel in  other areas of the encyclopedia. Yes, Wikipedia civility  is a very  serious issue; many of those who  complain  about  it appear to be ones who  look  for every  instance of possible incivility  or personal attack in  everything  they  read. They usually  end up  with  a piece of wood at their feet.  Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Had to look up recalcitrant...Read the Internet Civility article, very true and interesting. Ironically, some of the comments left underneath it pretty much underscored the topic. I agree that anonymity gives some false shield where people say things they would never say in person. Another thing about posts and the written word is that you cannot see expressions on someone's face or hear a tone in their voice. You can write something thinking you have been clear in your meaning and intention, but the exact words may not come across to all as they were in your head. Better to be very careful, Something I find myself in the middle of is when I think someone is being very mean, my chastising gets too intense...not sure which is worse. ThanksPetersontinam (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon
Hi Kudpung,

Thanks for your speedy response to my query regarding Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon.

You may be aware that although King Henry VIII had only one recognised illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, he had a number of others such as John Perrot and Thomas Stukley. The conjectural circumstantial evidence of these two is shaky. With Francis Hastings there is a passing reference that his mother was a mistress of Henry VIII but no further contemporary suggestion that he was an illegitimate son of Henry VIII.

My contribution is merely a collection of various pieces of facts available from numerous sources on the internet that there is a far stronger case to include Francis Hastings than indeed John Perrot and Thomas Stukley whose claims are largely circumstantial.

I include my article again for you to consider my case that Francis should be given the same status historically as an alleged illegitimate son of King Henry VIII as John Perrot and Thomas Stuckely. My hope is to use Wikipedia as a medium to engage in an academic debate into the parentage of Francis Hastings.

BTW, I am going to Malvern this weekend!

Regards

John

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstephengeorge (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi John. I am not an expert on nobility and it  is not  my subject area, hence the reason why I have appealed to all the editors concerned to  return to  the article and, if necessary, restore their edits in  a way  that  complies with  policy  and formatting guidelines. On  that, I  will  of course be of help  where I  can. As a further tip, you  may  wish  to  call  upon the help  of the WikiProject England and/or WikiProject English Royalty on  their project  talk  pages. There is no  need to  post  the content  of an article or your edits in  talk  page discussions, a simple Wikilink to  the article would suffice. You  can also  create a direct  link  to  a specific edit by  going  to  the Page History of that article, clicking on 'prev' and when the page has loaded,  grabbing  the URL from  your browser's address bar and enclosing  it in single square brackets like this: , which  will  give you  a  in  the message text.
 * Do enjoy your trip to Malvern! Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD
Sorry, I must have forgotten that one. I think I remembered for the other school AfDs I closed. Hut 8.5 13:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Calabe1992 14:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlize Theron
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RFA
Hey there, I wonder if you could give me some feedback on my work. I want to become an admin one day and even though I might not be ready yet it would be nice to get some feedback on how I can improve. Paolo Napolitano  19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. As always in matter like this, I  have replied by  email. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
We also need to keep an eye on whether the redirect/merge's are fulfilled properly... Beware: enormous workload ahead. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: AfD closure
Hey, sorry for the delay on the response. I'm in the camp of the chunk of people really burned out from this site right now, and it's actually taking a lot of energy to post anything at all here. For the two primary schools, I took into account the responses, or lack thereof, in those AfDs compared to the others. Admittedly I did find it odd since there was like a batch of 20 or so. In hindsight I should have just relisted them; if you insist on redirects for those two then it's alright. Knollwood, on the other hand, I've read a couple times now, and some of the redirect "votes" struck me as redirects in name only; were you to remove the bold text it would read like a delete rationale, and the only other rationale was that we've done that before. Just because something's done one way doesn't necessarily mean it has to be that way for eternity. I can see other admins closing it as a redirect, but that's if you're just reading the bold text. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Wizardman. Thanks for getting  back  to  me. I know I'm rather sensitive to  school  deletion issues, but  as I  have explained here for the N'th time over the years, although  I  am  the most  active coordinator of the schools project, I've no COI with  schools other than wishing  to  adhere to  any  current guidelines or clearly  established precedents until such times as a new precedent demonstrates a clear swing the other way. With KNollwood, I  read the result as:
 * Epeefleche (Nominator): Half a 'redirect', because although a nomination generally  presupposes a 'delete', he  clearly accepts 'redirect'  per convention as a possible solution.
 * Cullen: Clear 'redirect' citing precedent.
 * Nytend:Clear 'delete', although the rationale may not possibly be a strong one.
 * Carrite:Clear 'redirect' citing precedent.
 * Kudpung: Clear 'redirect' citing precedent.
 * Change the name from my  involved vote to  that  of any  other user, and I would still  see a close as 'redirect'. The long-standing precedent is documented at  WP:OUTCOMES which  although  an essay, is merely  an objective summary  of historical  facts and ' ...is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy  '.  We  generally  understand 'redirect' in this case to mean that  rather than deleting the page, the content is blanked and converted to a redirect with a  template, thus keeping the history intact and the page easy to  restore if notability  is indeed asserted at  a later time, without  the need for requesting an undeletion.


 * While Wikipedia is not strictly inclusionist per se, deletion is always recommended as a last resort, and many experienced editors and admins (myself included) recommend uncontentiously  redirecting clearly non notable schools anyway without  passing  through  AfD and creating unnecessary bureaucracy. Again, it's even cheaper, for example, than a PROD, and unlikely  to  be contested as most  school articles are created by  WP:SPA who  never return to  the project. Anyone who  feels they  can later assert notability  can undo  the redirect.


 * That said, as one admin  to  another, I  respect  your decision entirely on Knollwood, and unless you  feel  you  would like to  change it now, based on my interpretation above, I'm perfectly happy to let it rest at that.  I  will  restore the other two and redirect them citing your kind consent here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wizardman, dropping by, I seeing nothing different in Knollwood School from the others; the consensus was c;early redirect, and redirect is appropriate. This group of articles was almost identical, and I can't see why they would be handled differently. I'm asking you to underlet and redirect, ; I'm not sure why Kudpung is willing to let that one pass.  DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think something needs to be done
It seems to me that Epeefleche has typed "primary school" into the search box and then sent every single one to AfD without any other actual thought on the matter. There are now 10(?) instances where he has demonstrated that s/he simply pushes articles to AfD without any other thought. I think this move to AfD every primary school is too rushed and there have been too many mistakes. The workload it has created has been insane, and I've only been involved for the last ~45 nominations (I apparently missed the first 105).

I think his/her school related AfD's have to be set aside until someone is prepared to do sections C and D from WP:BEGIN or points 8 and 9 from WP:Guide_to_deletion. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What evidence have you got that Epeefleche has not done sections C and D from BEGIN? Fmph (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If s/he had complied with sections C and/or D:
 * We would see tagging and/or school article talk page participation in his/her contributions;
 * We would see some evidence of rewrites taking place (s/he's done some copyediting today that's showing up in my watchlist, awesome);
 * We wouldn't have ridiculous AfD's for obvious high schools and school regions;
 * We wouldn't have AfD's for schools with RS's that turn up first when doing google searches for major Australian newspapers (like this).
 * Basicly, I'm not seeing evidence to suggest s/he has complied with the process and AGF has become too difficult seeing lots of evidence that s/he hasn't. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Danjel, ::The workload is indeed insane. As the most active coordinator of WP:WPSCH, I  naturally  feel  I  have to  follow what's going  on. It's taken up  all  my  Wikitime since Christmas. I think  that  a programme of mass AfDing schools is totally  inadmissible, and is second only  to  the mass deletions that  brought  the BLPPROD about to stop it. BLP though had a special issue, some unsourced or nn BLPs were toxic. I  think it's a grossly  irresponsible waste of editors' time to  find a cat, and go through it  systematically  nominating  articles fro deletion. if someone comes across an old nn school  and wants it deleted, that's another thing -  and they  can PROD it  where it  will  procedurally  slip  away  after 7 days if no one raises an objection. being  a deletionist  is one thing, but  actively  looking  for stuff to  mass delete clearly  demonstrates an attempt  to  push  a personal point  of view, is nothing  less than tendentious, and is highly disruptive of the process  of building  an encyclopedia. The problem is, that  it's not  just  Epeefleche, several  others appear to have joined in, and also appear to vote based on  their opinions rather than on what  is normally  done, whichever way  they  vote. That  leads to  the inadmissible situation where near identical school article get  closed with  opposite consensus. School articles are not  toxic, so  why  can't  people just  leave them  alone, and just  delete those that  are copyvios or blatant  promotion  for private schools? Or at  least  send only  those to  AfD for which there is not  a clear answer? Something  needs to  be done, but if I  take the initiative (like I  did with  RfA reform) people will  accuse me of having  a vested interest. Perhaps someone should make a list  of all  those who  have been proposing  school AfDs over tha last  few weeks, list a lot of diffs for closures that  they've lost, and take it  either to  ANI, or some other noticeboard. I  think  a lot  of this was prcipitated by  Night  of the Big Wind's attempt to  push through  a school  deletionist  policy  with  his attempts to  start  an RfC after his first  mass AfDs failed. I'll see if I can rustle up  some ideas from  the other school  coordinators -  we're all admins, so  we're supposed to  have some clue ;) but  let me have your thoughts. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I have no idea. I think ANI is the venue though, and I think it has to be done sooner rather than later. I don't think I'm the person to push it (definitely not diplomatic enough), but let me know when it starts. I think it should happen sooner rather than later.
 * I'll keep an eye on AfD and make sure to vote merge/redirect into every one of the nonnotable primary schools. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't feel necessarily obliged to  change any  opinions you might  have on  the policies or precedents  themselves; just  share the need to  get  something done about  the issue of the mass nominations, but  if it  helps reinforce a practice that  may  be worth keeping for want  of a better one, or one that  may  never reach  consensus, it might help all round :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung, thanks for drawing my attention to this. I agree with you that actively going around looking for stuff to delete is quite inappropriate. Notability is in reality a rather elastic concept and I don't think it matters at all if there are some primary school articles floating around where the notability is questionable. If in doubt, leave it in. If somebody has gone to the trouble of producing a reasonable article even if the subject is not really all that notable, I think it is wrong to delete it. It's not doing any harm and somebody might find it useful. -- Alarics (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alarics. Ironically, as you suggest, it  is a policy  that  out  policies are not  graven in  stone. In  contrast to  what  is normally  practiced, i.e. the 'redirect' precedent  for nn schools, there will  of course be some occasions where the community, based on  truly  compelling arguments  will decide otherwise - and I'm sure everyone would be happy  with  that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I came to your page after seeing your involvement in primary school related AfD's. I became aware of this deletion campaign through the Hong Kong articles that I am following, and I have expressed my opinion in 2 of them (Li Sing Primary School and Kiangsu and Chekiang Primary School), which I think should be kept. I am in general opposed to such deletionist and often indiscriminate drives. They result in valuable content being deleted: several of the redirects that I have seen for primary school did not result in any part of the content being included into the redirect target article, and that's not appropriate as it leads to the loss of information that some people have taken the time to assemble and that some other people could find useful. I don't know what User:Epeefleche's motivations are, but I know that he/she has been banned 4 times already, including one time for mass sockpupettry. Could it be that the "many other users following him" are not "that many"? olivier (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points Olivier - thank you  for coming  here with  your input. The content  of redirects is not  deleted and and be found in  the history  of the redirect page. Please feel  free to  merge any usable content into  the new parent  article; you  may  wish  to  create the ==Education== section to  accommodate it if there isn't one. 'Not that  many'? Hmm... something  that  had not  crossed my mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any time to go through all blanking/redirects and include the valuable content into the target articles. I believe this should be done at the time of the redirection. That's why I am in favor of a "merge" rather than a "blanking/redirect", since it forces the inclusion of material to be ported somewhere where it is visible. Material that appears only in the history of an article turned into a redirect is as good a deleted for most readers of Wikipedia. olivier (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken,  thanks. On  another note, do  you  think this sent le canard? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't conclude to much from this alone. Such results can appear simply when users have similar interests and end up working on the same projects and articles. olivier (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some, not all,  of these interests seem  strangely  eclectic -  and coincidental? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That could certainly be coincidental. Just look at this and you may be surprised. olivier (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Possible, but it hadn't struck me as a possibility until it was mentioned. *shrug* &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to interpret the results, but if the final number is anything to go this looks slightly more probable. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Birds of a feather maybe, but probably  not  ducks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, get a life! Fmph (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's about a dozen...
...AfD's that were closed as delete by Wizardman that might need to be fixed as redirects. Argh. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Links? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From: WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools/archive:
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/John_Rankin_Junior_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Abbotsbury_Primary_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Albert_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Reaside_Junior_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Ryders_Green_Primary_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Topcliffe_Primary_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Telok_Kurau_Primary_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/St._Christopher%27s_International_Primary_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Charlton_Kings_Infants%27_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Charlton_Kings_Junior_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Forest_View_Primary_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Chennestone_Primary_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Cleves_School,_Weybridge
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/The_Edward_Richardson_Community_Primary_School
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Ching_Shin_Elementary_and_Junior_High_School_and_Kindergarten
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Knollwood_Christian_School
 * OK, I lied. There's 17 of them that should have been redirects. Seems like Wizardman was in a bit of a mood or something. Should we recreate them as redirects? &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those I all stand behind, and there's no question in my mind that they should stay deleted. Any that I went a bit overboard on Kudpung already brought to my attention, and have been taken care of. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not questioning that. But they should have been redirected to their localities and an education section created. Among other benefits is the fact that it'll prevent the articles being recreated and then sent back to AfD. :) &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 22:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung has notified me of this discussion. I'm afraid any assistance I can provide will be limited due to high levels of work bogging me down for the next three weeks. I'm concerned that taking it to ANI could turn into a drama fest, but if these mass nominations go on and on something may have to be done. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish  to  recuse myself now on  anything further concerning Wizardman's closures. I'm  satisfied with  his responses to my  original  enquiry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wizardman, why did you close these as deletes, instead of redirects/merges? I'm coming back to this after a little break from the topic., and I admit to being horrified how things are developing.   I do not see how any of the AfDs offered any evidence that such a redirect or merger would be inappropriate, and it is WP:Deletion policy that such redirected and merges are always preferred to deletion. It surprises me, Kudpung, that you should be content with this; I thin there is an urgent need to restore the material properly. I'm asking ther two of you therefore, how can we resolved it. WM, will you change your closings, and if not, why not. If you do not I am undecided  between several alternatives.   One is to say they were  closed contrary to very clear and unmistakable deletion policy  to such a blatant extent that I shall simply revert them as unmistakable errors. ; another is I shall simply add the information to the articles on the localities, giving the attribution to the now deleted material, and let others figure out whether that requires undeletion. The third of course is tot take them to deletion review. Perhaps you can think of a way of avoiding that degree of conflict.  DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep the faith!
Sorry to see you taking flak for your heroic efforts to fix RfA. The fate of all great reformers in this fallen world. Maybe it would be an idea to announce on RfA talk some target deadlines for your first proposals, if you could agree something with your fellow coordinators? There's probably a lot of us waiting for you to come up with some suggestions, but it kind of seems like its been a long wait! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Schools (X-post Carrite talk)
Hi Carrite. I see perhaps that the idea of an eventual RfC on school notability may not be as dead as I might have though it was. That said, I do think an RfC would have a far greater chance of success if it had a neutral statement, rather than expressing any deletionist/incusionist leanings, rather than attempting by its very syntax, to persuade participants to support a singular point of view. Because I am also very keen to arrive finally at a consensus that I can implement, whichever way the cookie crumbles, I would support and offer as much help as possible - as I did in the beginning with my original example - a neutrally worded proposal that offers the history of the issue, and allows the !voters to make up their own minds, but I may come out with some heavy opposition if this is not to be the case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's more or less the way I feel. I think the current system works extremely well and I suspect when the various alternatives are laid out, the "Grand Compromise" between inclusionism and deletionism implicit in an extremely high bar for elementary schools and and extremely low bar for high schools will be retained. I don't have a dog in the fight, other than I don't like pointless deletionism because I feel it impacts both the content of the encyclopedia and the level of participation of content creators negatively. But if people really want to go to war over the notability of every school article on WP on a case-by-case basis, hey, that would be the new consensus and I'd stand aside and chuckle at the logistical catastrophe that ensues. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I add, from the outside looking in and as a newcomer, that the same administrator should not be making the decision on a string of deletions that are related? It could be taken as a questionable and possibly more of an personal opinion than a neutral decsion.Petersontinam (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't  think  that's a problem. It's not  too difficult for an experienced user to  evaluate  a rough  consensus, so  their opinion doesn't really get a chance of being  expressed.  Admins who  do  a stint  on  closing AfDs just  look  at  the day's log  and work  through it. If there happens to  be a batch, such  as the mass school AfDs that  are causing  concern, they'll just  work through  it  in  the normal way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My dog in the fight is a desire to get this out of AfD. The only real reason for permitting school articles is to give students something to work on, but I think that a truly essential need to recruiting new editors. But I cannot get too excited about elementary schools being deleted, as relatively few editors at that level are really ready to contribute. However, I would get very aroused against any attempt to start deleting high schools, where students can make passable articles. Basically, I no longer giver a damn is a few borderline notable   articles get into Wikipedia. They are not a danger There are two dangers we face: one is allowing promotionalism. and the other is discouraging new editors/ I tend to judge other problems in terms of those. The question in constructing rfcs about notability is the attitude of those who truly thing, contrary to policy, that the gng is something which must indispensably be met without exception, and the only place for special rules is restricting it further. Some rules, like athlete, can work that way ; but  some like WP:PROF do not. I no longer care much about y what articles we have, for that''s just temporary; I care about what contributors wer have, because they're the future.  DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"talkback"
Hi Kudpung,

do you know why I got this message on my talk page? effeietsanders 11:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops! My mistake. It  should have read → WP:EAR. BTW, your signature redirects to  the Dutch  Wikipedia. Probably  not  a good idea ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks :) Yes, it links back there, intentionally. But as you can see, only part of it links to nlwiki, part of it links to my user page here. effeietsanders 14:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Doon School
As you said that top-importance keeps it at forefront, don't you think Doon should be then given one? It is in the line for becoming a GA, after all. And everyday work is being done to improve it. Thanks for your reply. Merlaysamuel (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Doon School is rated by  WP:WPSCH as a top  priority  article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Epeefleche
I'm thinking that Epeefleche has to be taken to WP:ANI now. I think that the recourse has to be that s/he is topicbanned from AfD's relating to schools.

Looking at his contributions, there were extremely small gaps between the nominations that he was making. I strongly doubt that he paid any attention to WP:BEFORE or WP:Guide to deletion at all. In particular, and on top of the examples already copiously extant in WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools, there was:
 * 1 minute between his nominations for Engadine PS and Middle Harbour PS (the latter of which has generated problems because a google search wasn't conducted to find RS's);
 * 2 minutes between his nominations for St. Christopher's International Primary School and SJKC Damansara (the latter of which as generated problems because a claim for notability in the article text wasn't considered);
 * 2 minutes between his nominations for Kelson Primary School and St. Joseph's School, Oamaru (because, again, a google search wasn't done that would have showed the school dates back to 1891);

Of special notice, halfway down the page here, it seems that he made 33 nominations in 2½ hours between 0729, Dec. 25 and 0956, Dec. 25. He excels himself again between 1105 and 1112 by making 6 nominations in 7 minutes. With such short gaps between nominations, there is simply no way that he is putting any level of consideration into any of his AfD nominations. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 03:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps rather than prosecute a single individual, because a couple of other have also been making  multiple schools AfDs too, this should be of a general  concern such  as misuse of a process and/or disruption to  Wikipedia causing  a lot  of unnecessary waste of other voters' and closers' time for non  toxic articles. Before we do  anything  however, now would be the time to  take stock  of all  the school  AfDs since December, and produce the links to  the closures and and compare how many  have been closed as delet, redirect/merge, keep. The end effect being  that  it  might  bring  about statistical  evidence that  proves or disproves the preceedent  that  apparently  exists per WP:OUTCOMES. However, as AN/I and AN are nowadays mainly  commandeered by  non-admins voicing  their 'views', it's likely  to  degenerate into  another fiasco and debate on  deletion policies (which  would be a  RfC venue) without  consensus. We  need to urgently  get  some expert opinion  on  this because at  the extreme, it  might  be a direct  case for arbcom. I'm  sure there have been other such  similar cases of disruption, but  having  only  been an admin  for a relatively short  time, I  would not  know how and where they  were handled. I'll see what  I  can do about  getting  some advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I've asked around for some neutral advice. We'll  have to  wait  and see what  they  come up  with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been following this all along: on individual talk pages, AFDs based around a few regions, and the little bit that has been on WPSCH. On the general front, I can offer a tiny bit of bot help to generate a date-sorted list of school AFDs that have been opened over the past few months, but it'll take human research on how they were closed. On the user-specific front, Danjel, your research is incredibly helpful. I'm not sure if ANI is the right avenue; another direction is WP:RFC/USER. The latter has been considered a weak avenue in the past, I'm not sure if the consensus over the past year is any better. In any case, I support doing so; it's more than just schools that have been hit with many AFDs. tedder (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just took the text from (and every other page from there to Dec. 10) and let my computer grind through the text for a while. There's probably a degree of error because I didn't expend too much energy on it (put in keywords like "school", "academy", "ecole", "sekola" and a couple of others).
 * Between Dec. 17 and Jan 10 there were 181 school related AfD's started. From among those, these users started AfD's:
 * B.wilson	1
 * Cindamuse	1
 * Dennis Brown	1
 * Edison	1
 * JamesBWatson	1
 * Pit-yacker	1
 * RadioFan	1
 * Raymie	1
 * Sillybillypiggy	1
 * Sparthorse	1
 * Zzaffuto118	1
 * Fmph	2
 * Night of the Big Wind	2
 * Ryulong	2
 * Vanadus	2
 * Vibhijain	2
 * Arunsingh16	3
 * Purplebackpack	6
 * Epeefleche	151


 * Here is a graph of the activity showing, as you suggested, spikes in activity just prior to Xmas.Schoolrelatedafds_dec17_jan10.png
 * PS, those hours that my old boss forced me to sit in statistics courses finally paid a little bit of dividend. Finally. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 07:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done! So it does look  fairly  conclusive after all. It  seems to  have dropped off in  the last  three days, but remains to  be seen. Whaht  we'll  need to  get  is how they  will all  of been closed when the current  batch reaches its 7 days. I think SW could tweak his AfD stats tool to do that - unless you  have an idea.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ...There's probably a degree of error because I didn't expend too much energy on it ... - sounds exactly like what you are accusing your target of, doesn't it? Fmph (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're right. I'll be honest then and say that my numbers probably underrepresent the true situation. I didn't look for more words than the ones that I already know are translations/synonyms for the word "school", so, who knows? <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 11:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If the extremely high volume of mass nominations don't repeat themselves, then no action may be necessary. The fact that the spike was done just before Christmas is an aggravating factor, given that many editors will obviously want to do other things in the Christmas period. If it does happen again, then I think WP:ANI may be the only answer, and if that doesn't go anywhere, WP:RFC/U. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 09:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * it is also the case that the holiday period -- which in many cases coincides with the ending of the school term--causes stresses in people, and much careless  work gets done then. There were several examples of thoughtless conflict about all sorts of things  at an/i over the past two pr three  weeks.  DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I..?
Hi, I accidentally marked an edit as a minor edit when I shouldn't have. Is there a proper way that I can change that? I put in two links and I just realised they should not have been marked "minor." Thank you Petersontinam (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries are one of the few things that can't  be changed or re-edited (they  can only  be deleted under very  special  circumstances). There is almost certainly  nothing  malicious in  what  you  did, and it's nothing  to  worry  about at  all. More important  is to  provide adequate edit summaries -  without  going  over the top.  Sometimes it  may  be appropriate to  do  a dummy  edit to  include a forgotten  edit  summary, but  again, the need is rare. Some ES are added automatically  when using  tools such  as Twinkle and HotCat. I  have a tendency  to  be brief with  my  ES, and never use them  for messaging, but  you  are welcome to  take a look here. See WP:MINOR and WP:ES,  and WP:DUMMY for details.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Petersontinam (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

School redirect leaves a mess
Girard, Ohio/Girard Education-Things were fine until I was listing the City that NON-Girard schools were located in..if new schools keep getting added to a City page, I felt it should at least be clear. For some reason, only one school from Niles OH was added, while there are a total of 8 schools in Niles. Also, two Youngstown schools were in the list (Liberty HS and William S Guy), though they would seem to belong within the Youngstown page (article). Help me to understand, please- If schools are being redirected to other pages because of AfD's, wouldn't all of the City's schools go there? Is there a type of overlapping or reconfiguration of school districts that I haven't been able to find? Youngstown reconfigured within their own city, but I can't find where two of their schools would end up in Girard. I can keep going with this, no problem, but I need to know if when a City's schools are being deleted and redirected...does that mean the City also was deleted or just those specific schools off of a page...and if it just those specific schools, then why some and not others? This is far beyond my comprehension. Please look at my edit to Girard/Education and you will see the schools I have omitted (Youngstown) and then please advise. Thank you Petersontinam (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that complicated. If a school that has never had a Wiki article is not listed, ther's no need to add it unless you feel really obliged to look up and list all the schools in that community.Nobody is simply going to delete a school from an article. The normal practice is to blank the article to be redirected, and turn it into a redirect (there's a button on the tool bar of the edit window)Schools that are redirected should have a mention on the target page (although I must admit, I may have forgotten to do this a couple of times). If the page has been physically deleted (rare), just create the redirect, but you won't be able to see the deleted page to be able to merge anything other than the name. More important is that the redirect page has the  template on it so that it is automatically added to the cat of redirected schools so we can keep a track on them. If a school exists, its almost always possible to find a suitable target: school district (USA), Catholic parish or diocese, or locality where you can add something like 'Among schools in the town/village is  XXXXX Primary School.' If the school is already listed on the target page and Wiki-linked or a red link, undo the xxx double square brackets to delink it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying this tongue in cheek, but your first sentence was "it's not that complicated." I read on and my head started spinning... I still do not understand why the Youngstown schools were listed in Girard (before I edited). If they were AfD'd, wouldn't they have been redirected to the City of Younstown's page? That is why I asked about a school being deleted from an article. I think that I am in over my head right now and should stick to something simpler until I learn more. For now, though, I need to either add those two schools back in (should I?) or go put them on the Youngstown page. Remember, a lot of the things you were trying to explain to me I haven't done yet (such as redirect) so after I figure out what to do with Girard, I need to take a step back and learn more basic things. Petersontinam (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Schools in Girard, Ohio should be listed in Girard, Ohio because it  is the actual community location  of the school. There's no  harm  in  them also  being  listed in  the education  section of the Youngstone article but  it  would be an unnecessary  duplication, especially  if the school  were also  listed in  Youngstown City School District.  Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the Girard Schools listed in Girard and had also added in that Prospect Elementary School had won the blue ribbon award. But Youngstown schools were there (in Girard) before I started editing. I removed them and planned to put them in Younsgtown. What I am asking is--why were the Youngstown schools in Girard....(because I would think they should be on the Youngstown page). I'm assuming that the McDonald and Niles schools were redirects to Girard, but I had wondered if All schools in Niles should be listed (wondered why some Niles Schools were AfD's, and not others) It just might be too late at night for me to be able to get what I am trying to say across, as my brain is fuzzy. I will try again tomorrow when I have had some sleep. :)Petersontinam (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The Youngstown and Girard articles were cfeated 2002 by the same editor, User talk:Ram-Manone, perhaps you can ask him - he last edited the encyclopedia in August 2011 so he might still be around.  The logical places for a school (in the US) are its immediate community, and the school district article -  if it exists. There is no compulsion to create redirects for school articles that have never existed, even if they are listed somewhere. If they did previously exist and they have been physically deleted without leaving a redirect or a red link, then it's not worth bothering about. If there is a red link, clicking on it will tell you if it was deleted, it's up to you then if you want to create a redirect for it, but I think there are more pressing things to do Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You are aware of edit warring by Mewulwe on the East Germany article, so I am requesting that you please assist in arbitrating the discussions at the East Germany article
There is edit warring going on at the East Germany article but also a dispute over whether the term "satellite state" is a biased term to describe East Germany. I and others have compiled a vast array of scholarly sources from German, American, British, Czech and other scholars and records of East Germans' public opinion on East Germany as a state, that collectively claim that East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union, or in the case of East Germans themselves they used an even stronger term, that it was a puppet state. Also, many other articles on former countries use the status text for similar terms such as "client state", "colony", "protectorate", or "puppet state". Anyway, your arbitration of the East Germany article and discussion on the use of the term "satellite state" would be greatly appreciated.--R-41 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I know. I've been watching. I'm not going to get involved in the discussion  itself. Rather than block anyone, I've fully  protected the page until  a proper WP:RfC is organised on  the talk page and the broader community  can comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that is a proper decision, still I would like to have a recommendation on what to do to have a wider discussion from more editors and perhaps administrators who are less emotionally involved or attached to the issue. Would Wikipedia:Third Opinion be an appropriate venue? Also, as for the East Germany article, as you have fully protected the page, I am requesting the friendly inclusion by you of the following material within the bolded brackets to be put into the intro on East Germany below the paragraph on the culture of East Germany, the paragraph is based on scholarly sources and does not seem controversial in any way to me at least:


 * (The economy of East Germany faced many challenges upon the country's formation, the region had been devastated by the damages of World War II and after the war the Soviet Union had dismantled much of East Germany's industrial capacity by 40 to 45 percent - roughly twice the effect of the damage caused during the war - as the Soviets attempted the transportation of the entire disassembled factories in component-form to be reassembled in the Soviet Union. East Germany's economic productivity was restored by the 1960s, after being integrated into Comecon, the Eastern Bloc's trade system. This recovery was delayed in comparison to West Germany’s economic recovery from the war, that was completed by 1950 due to massive financial assistance by the United States and the United Kingdom in the Marshall Plan. It used a command economy, however this economy went through three major periods of centralization from the 1940s to 1962, decentralization and reform under the leadership of Walter Ulbricht from 1962 to 1970, and recentralization under Erich Honecker from 1970 to 1989 . Its economy’s main products included chemicals, optical products, and machinery. )

--R-41 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the issues involved and I  am  completely  neutral. I  have started the debate for you  at  Talk:East Germany. This will  be a widely  publicised Central RfC in  order to  attract  a maximum of comment  from  all  editors including  those who  are not  directly involved with  editing  the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Please follow the instructions on  the talk  page for requests for edits. Thanks.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

relisting
You earlier relisted Articles for deletion/Manzur Nu'mani, so you might want be interested in further developments there.  DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen it. A good call DGG, but I'm not  sure the nominator  even follows their watchlist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.- Periyar River.
Hi, Thanks for your assistance on Periyar (river). I'm working on the bring the people involved in the article changes without discussing to the discussing table. Will keep you posted. P earll's S un TALK 07:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung, tasks to do?
Hi Kudpung, Is there a place to go where minor edits and clean-up are needed? Thank you. Petersontinam (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gosh yes! If  you  have a good eye for prose, grammar, style and typos, check  out  the WP:GOCE. You'll  need to  get reasonably familiar with  the WP:MOS first -  it's a lot of reading, but  we all  have to  do  it. If you  do  a full  sweep of a page, let  me know and I'll  check  it  over for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will read first as you suggest. Petersontinam (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Still reading and absorbing. Petersontinam (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Christianity
You closed the discussion at Articles for deletion/Conservative Christianity by saying keep as a disambiguation page. In my opinion, this was not a consensus at all. While many suggested disambiguation, it was far from everyone, and the correct closing should have been either keep (as is) or no consensus.

When I saw the disambiguation page, I was not aware of the AfD and was disambiguating links. There are a ton of links to Conservative Christianity and having a DAB page there is a big disambiguation problem. So I thought that changing it to an article was one of many items on the Wikipedia to-do list.

I bring this up since this was discussed at Talk:Christian conservatism where most users agreed that disambiguation didn't make sense, and a redirect might work better. I then tried to do the redirect and wound up in an edit war with another user. This other user disagreed with the disambig idea but was reverting to enforce you incorrect AfD close.

Please respond. Thanks, D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The result was 'keep' (as a DAB page). As this means the article/page has not  been deleted, editors are free  to  carry out whatever action  they  feel necessary if it  is reached by  consensus decision  on  the article talk  page. Edit  warring  is not  a solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Essentially, you're saying that the disambiguation page is not to be considered a binding requirement and we can change it if we like? D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  05:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is clearly what I said. Any additional comment by the closing admin is generally a recommendation only. Any AfD closure that is not 'delete' leaves the article free to be redirected, moved, edited, changed to/from a dab page, at will by any editor, preferably with a consensus on the article's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has now appeared at ANI and includes comment on what your above advice meant. Perhaps you might like to add your view? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Gort Na Móna Secondary School
Many thanks for your feedback on my wikipedia page on Gort Na Móna Secondary School. I have made some amendments using Hanley Castle High School as a template as you have suggested. Your feedback is greatly welcomed.

This was my secondary school and prior to this page "google" could find nothing on the Internet. I plan to add more information over the coming weeks.

Again many thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean999diving (talk • contribs) 18:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Tah for the advice
Tah, a few good pointers I shall see if I can edit my app for admin. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just  wondering  if you  would like some more advice. I  actually  wrote that essay, but  I  would be happy  to  send you  my  thoughts by  email. Let  me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, I thought I processed my admin self nomination, but can't see it in the list of nominated admins. I didn't find the process very simple! Have I done something wrong??? Tah for the help, very kind. :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point was that  quite honestly I don't  think the app will get very far. I  think you  would make a fine admin, but  not  just  yet. You're welcome to  go  ahead,  but  some opposition  may  not  be as friendly as mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: If you do  go  ahead, you'll  need to  opt in  for  this thing in order to  provide a full  breakdown of your edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to ask you how far you think it will get, and thought that may be the answer! No problems, I appreciate the friendly advice. Is there a point to leaving it in there and trying to learn from what people say, or on the odd chance it may get throught, or better to withdraw the app? Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll answer that by email. Check your mail in a few moments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't used the email addie that is in the contact, its old. The current email is could you re-send? Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Tah, for the email and advice, I've responded Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC) No probs, all part of the learning experience! Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Activated the edit counter - apart from the admin application, these are great stats - will come in handy. Can't see the monthly opt in option.

You've got mail!
-- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 12:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— cyberpower ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 13:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The user AndyTheGrump is behaving arrogantly towards me, when I posted a response to one of his posts, he just laughed in my face, writing "LOL! "
As you are the administrator overseeing the Talk:East Germany page, I am informing you that User:AndyTheGrump is behaving arrogantly, in response to a post I made, he responded by laughing at me, writing "LOL!". He went on to arrogantly say "Thank you for providing such convincing evidence that the author of this encyclopaedia agrees with my perspective on the matter." I can't stand it any longer, he is treating me like an animal when I've provided source after source and then he just laughs at me and snarls back at me in a haughty manner "thank you so much for giving me a good argument", he might as well have added insulting me by calling me "you loser" - I am being abused on the talk page for my conscientious efforts - I won't tolerate being treated this way--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider taking it to  WP:AN/I or WP:WQA if you  feel  strongly about it. It's got  nothing  to  do  with  me.   Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Craze/Stub
Dear Kudpung, I would like to expand the stub article on Elizabeth Craze. In my opinion, there is more info to be added. Also, the Children's Cardiomyopathy Foundation will be doing a newsletter on her in the near future with current information. Could you please take a look at this when I have finished? Or, if you think I shouldn't do it, could you please say so? Thanks. Petersontinam (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. There's never any need to  ask ;) Just  go  ahead and improve/expand any article you  like. Just  be sure to  reference any  contentious or disputable material with  reliable sources. Let  me know when you  have worked on it, and I'd be happy  to  check  over for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Petersontinam (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Clara Byrd Baker
Hey there, I'm following up with you regarding your recommendation in the above referenced deletion discussion. The article as initially presented was about a nonnotable elementary school where the article creator removed the PROD. Generally, I am the first person to redirect schools that fail the notability criteria, so my recommendation would have likely been to redirect as standard outcome. However, while working on a separate article, I ran across some information on the namesake of this school, Clara Byrd Baker. When I saw that an article with her name was up for deletion, I was surprised to see that it was about the school. Opting for an alternative choice to deletion, I have made a major revamp to the article to focus on the person, rather than the school. Accordingly, I am requesting that you take a second look at the article to ascertain its viability. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 08:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, Cindy. I have changed my vote to 'keep' accordingly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Page deletion
Hello,I'm new to Wikipedia and started building my page (I'm a musician). I got a notification about the deletion of my page yesterday and I did try to link a few of the bands I've played with to my page, but apparently it didn't work.Could you please tell me what to do?Luckily I have the text saved so it's not a big deal. Thank you. Terry Eleftheriou

by the way here's my myspace page myspace.com/warblast

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wargrinder2000 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Terry. Unfortunately, social  media sites such  as MySpace are not  admissible because they  are not  reliable - yours was  written  by you. We  have no  proof for example that you  are one of the fastest drummer in  Greece, besides which there are other qualities for a good drummer that  are more imporan  important  than speed.  To  be sufficiently  notable for Wikipedia, an article must  pass some strict criteria. You  can read them  by  clicking  on  these links: WP:BLP for people, WP:BAND for musicians and bands, WP:RS for reliable sources, and WP:V for verifiability. Finally, you  should not  be writing  an article about  yourself -  if you  are truly  famous and have made an important influence on  Greek music as a solo  musician and your music has charted nationally, there would be articles about  you   about  you  in  established newspapers or magazines, and someone would write a Wikipedia about you, see WP:AUTOBIO. If you  feel  you  can meet all  these criteria, you  may  develop  a new article in  your User space, you  may  then ask an experienced editor  to  review it  for you  before it  is published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AWB CheckPage
Hi, on the AWB CheckPage I could not find my username until I did a manual search with my browser and found myself right at the top of the M's. Could you please put my username in its alphabetical order, when you next update it, just in case anyone needs to refer to it in future for some reason. I should be between "Marcika" and "Marcus Qwertyus" on the list. Thanks,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Demi Moore
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Demi Moore. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you changing it back to a subsection, it just appeared to visually end the voting section
When you added your comment as a subsection it visually appeared to have ended the voting section, making it confusing for users who wanted to review and vote on whether to support or oppose the proposal. That is why I moved it on friendly grounds to being a comment. However if this is not acceptable I will accept you changing it back. Though I suggest that you make it a completely different section so as to not confuse it as having ended the voting session.--R-41 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you  for your kind  words Yunshui :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it acceptable in Wikipedia policy to spread a user contribution effort by administraotrs in English Wikipedia to ask for support from users from other language Wikipedias?
In regards to the East Germany article discussion on satellite state status, I discussed with User:POVbrigand about the possibility of bringing in Eastern European users who are able to speak English into the discussion on Talk:East Germany. Me and this user hold different views on the topic, I agree with the proposal at Talk:East Germany, he opposes, but he addressed the issue of bringing up the material on German Wikipedia on the matter that gave me this idea. I know that Wikipedia policy permits and sometimes promotes one language Wikipedia to observe and perhaps include material from another language Wikipedia. Could this apply to administrators like yourself being able to send a request to another language Wikipedia to ask for support? Also, I am wondering if we could get an additional month to compile detailed material for this issue at the article East Germany as this is a serious issue that will set a precedent for the other Wikipedia articles on states that have been identified as satellite states of the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From my  of view as a purely  neutral  observer (I  would very  much  have liked to have offered   comment  to  the debate, but  I  must  recuse myself) it  had certainly  occurred to  me already that  some cross-Wiki  'canvassing'  may  well  be a possibility. I am  not  aware of any  rules that  prevent inviting  other-language Wikis to  comment in  the same way  that  we advertise our discussions here. I would support the idea, but  you  may  need to  obtain  opinion  from  other editors more knowledgeable about  such a policy  than I  am. That said, I  would not  think  that  an extension  to  the discussion  is necessary; far better would be for some participants who  have said all  they can for now, to  step  back  for a while, as it  is quite possible that  others who  would have commented are not  bothering  after seeing  the passionate, but  not  very  objective arguments that  are now dominating the discussion. If you ask others, don't hesitate to refer them to this discussion here. I am only surmising, but it is possible that those who have bureaucrat or arbcom status might be the best to contact. Avoid formulating your request(s) in a way that may be construed as canvassing for the discussion. Feel free to keep me up to date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor
I note that you've been actively involved in the current school AfD fiasco. Is it possible to ask for you as an admin to ask for a decision to be reviewed? This historic school in Old Windsor dating back to 1725 has now been redirected. The decision seems to go against the consensus and against all common sense. The AfD page can be found here Articles for deletion/St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor. Dahliarose (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look  into  it  now and let you  know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And it's now redirected to a school with which there seems to be little connection. Shouldn't it have been redirected to a locality where it could have been, at least, mentioned in passing? SURPRISE! <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In my  opinion  the consensus would have been 'keep' with  'redirect' a close second. You  would need to  take this up  with  the closer User:Guerillero. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly  never should have been deleted, even if it  had been redirected. I'm  sure Guerillo  made an innocent  error -  I 've made the same mistake myself in  the past. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche: 1/2 redirect (because he left that option  open in  his nom)
 * Fmph: delete
 * Carrite: Redirect
 * danjel: keep
 * Night of the Big  Wind: delete or redirect (thus redirect)
 * Luciferwildcat: Keep
 * Purplebackpack: keep
 * dahliarose: keep
 * keep 4, delete 2, redirect 2.5. For some odd reason Kudpung didn't  vote on  this one ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the replies. I've also put a comment on the admin's talk page. If the school is going to be redirected it should be redirected to the page for Old Windsor and not another school page. Dahliarose (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the content of the school article specifically, but the closer has offered to userfy the contents if there was anything meaningful to be merged. Fmph (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

AfDs are not vote counts --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the AfD several  times over before concluding  easily  that  the consensus was not  'delete'. In  my  opinion, there were strong  arguments for keep, and 'redirect' (with  simple conversion  to  the article by  blanking  rather than deletion) would be the default in  a close call. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Guerillero stands by his decision. See User talk:Guerillero. Is there any way that a review of this AfD can be requested from another admin? Is there some way I can access the deleted article so that I can recreate the page? If this school hadn't got caught up in these mass school AfDs then this situation wouldn't have arisen in the first place and there would have been more time for other editors to consider the article. 10:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there's a way to access the deleted data. I've mentioned it above. Guerillero has offered to userfy it for you. Just go back to him and say yes please. He has indicated that he didn't mean to delete it. It was an omission on his part. Don't forget he's a volunteer. He's not paid for his work here, and he (andf every other admin) occasionally get it wrong. By and large they are not being malicious or conttrary. They are just trying to do the drudgery that is needed to keep the project alive. Fmph (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I'm not sure quite what is meant by "userfy" but I've put a request on Guerillero's talk page to ask if the article history could be restored to the redirect so that the article can be recreated as and when. I hadn't intended to imply criticism of our hard-working volunteer admins who all do a wonderful job. The problem in this case was with an overzealous editor who has been mass-nominating school articles for deletion without making proper checks for sources first. 13:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read my "Elizabeth Craze" expansion?
Hello Kudpung! I'm ready for your review, at your convenience. Elizabeth Craze Thank you! Petersontinam (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem..I only have my kindle now and it won't let me edit anything with length. I will have to come back after the blackout...will that be ok? -Petersontinam (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have copyedited the article, checking, updating, and organising  the references that  I  have now place inline. I  have recast some of the prose  for formal  language. Some claims are tagged inline as needing  references, but  a closer reading  of the source web sites may  provide that  information. Please see the citation  technique for usng  one ref several time - more details on  that  at  WP:CITE. To  see the full  extent  of the changes, please compare the diffs (Kudpung) in  the article history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry you had to take care of those things...with kindle, if the section is long you can't scroll up or down to edit when the keyboard is onscreen. Typing with one finger is not so easy either. If the article can sit, I will fix it Thursday. And no, I had no idea how to fix/edit references all at once where you had citations needed. Have been trying to read that. Thank you! Petersontinam (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What does it mean when a bot is dating message tags, the cn's ? Petersontinam (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It just  means that  I  am  too  lazy  to  enter the date in  the tags because I  know that  a bot will  do  it  for me ;)
 * When I do  a copy edit  of a short article, if each  change is relatively minor I  often do  everything  in  one edit, make a reasonably  detailed  edit summary, and occasionally  place an additional  note on  the article talk  page; it  saves cluttering  the edit history, and I'm not  in  a hurry  to  increase my  edit count! We're not  obliged to  use citation  temples (WP:CITE), but  it  makes life much  easier (and the source page clearer). There is a button  for this in  the edit  window toolbar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung, I fixed the citations needed...didn't realize that I just had to put in "StandfordMed"...I kept trying to put in Standford School of Medicine and it was very screwy. The last citation needed for the CCF newsletter: I am waiting to hear back from Sheila Gibbons on that for the exact date. Can it stay until the newsletter is published, or should it come off until it is published? Thank you. I know it's a pain in the butt to keep coming back to these things and I appreciate your help so much. Petersontinam (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seems to  have done a excellent job on that  -  you're learning  very  fast! Don't  worry  too  much  about  that  last  cn tag, move on  to  something  else now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 11:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

John H. Dessauer
Thanks, I really laughed my head off at that one. Responsible for the success of the Xerox Corporation. In future please google search something and allow editors time to write something and source it.. The German wikipedia link at least should have told you it might be notable...♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to  rant  at  me either -  you know the rules too, after having  created thousands of stubs. Did you  at  least  remember to  add the atrib? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Multinet Matrix Grid
Dear Sir, I firmly protest your deletion of my page under development called Multinet Matrix Grid. It is inexcusably rude to label a professional term that you clearly know little about as a "hoax." I own this intellectual property and it is my personal creation. I am simply using it in updated other professional webpages that have, themselves, been indexed by Google for many years, which we have for our offerings to the professional community and protecting our intellectual property, which is compliant with the accepted Best Practices of the net.

It is very clear that you are not a satellite professional and I do not remember you ever participating in any INTELSAT satellite conferences in the 1990s....from when this term dates. I am perfectly entitled to claim and document my own intellectual property. Satellite experts who came to these closed door professional only conferences know me well and remember my work, thank you.

You can send me an apology and stay out of my technical work, please. I will accept your apology based on the fact that you are not a satellite professional. If you were an engineer of a licensed international telecommunications carrier, you would probably understand it. I also presented this concept in a similarly closed door conference for state telecom customers of Intelsat in Budapest in 1994. Of course, if you did not work for an invited state telecom you would not have heard my presentation and you would not have been entitled to read my paper discussing this topic which was published in the proceedings.

We provide professional services for the telecommunications community and my family has been in this business since 1885, thank you. I am simply documenting our past work and as an editor you are expected to respect the professional work of others. If you do not like the fact that I use a proxy for security reasons, then that is your problem. Millions of people along the Asian Pacific Rim where you live use a blind proxy for security reasons.

I expect a written reply to my email, today, please, and a promise to not interfere with my professional work, thank you. I certainly respect and do not interfere with your work or that of others. Thank you Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4kumquats (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello 4kumquats. We do  not  reply  by  email, and I  am  sorry, but I  am under no  compulsion  to  accept  an article from you  that  you  claim to  own, and that  is your own, unreferenced, original  research, and possibly  an advert  for it.  Furthermore, I  would ask  you please  to  respect  our rules - you are in  no  way perfectly entitled to claim and document your own intellectual property on  Wikipedia or insist  that  it  be included here. Please do not attack our  editors again, or unfortunately you  and your IP connection  will  be blocked from editing  the encyclopedia. Please click  these blue links to  know more: 1. WP:OWN, 2. WP:OR, 3. WP:PA, 4. WP:PROXY, 5. WP:PA. Kind regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello editor,
 * Thank you for your reply, but my reply is professional about satellite work and done among professionals in that domain. OK, maybe I do not know the nice pretty phrases you like to use, but I suspect you are apparently a "general editor" and not a professional satellite telecommunications engineer. Certainly top engineers at CISCO will understand it. Also, this kind of engineering English may not be easy for you to read. So, please cool down and know that no silly 'attack' is intended, but be cognizant of the fact hat when you attempt to edit and pass judgement on professional concepts that you are likely untrained or insufficiently trained to evaluate, you risk making massive errors...and frankly annoying serious professionals. So, I think that we have cleared the air on this issue. This is not advertizing, either, as you probably guessed after you wrote your ill advised remark, as it is a general concept of network engineering that applies to global and space communications grids, but perhaps you are not sufficiently qualified to have gathered it, quickly, before you wrote your ill conceived accusation that perhaps it is advertising. All of this is very funny except that it is a huge waste of my professional time on a Friday which is a business day.

Can we declare peace, and get professional about this? Frankly, we believe our 1st page Google listings for our key search terms related to this kind of work is ample proof of the "authoritative content" on our pages. Everybody makes honest mistakes, OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4kumquats (talk • contribs) 12:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the advice pages that I  have given you  links for. I  regret  that  we cannot  accept  your article at  this time. It  is unfortunate that  you  have spent  so  much of your valuable time before reading  our rules first. You  are welcome to  write other articles for our encyclopedia, but  they  must  not  be about  your own work, or about  work to  which you  have a close connection. Please see also  WP:COI for information  on  your conflict  of interest. As well as a 'general  editor', I  just  happen to  an  administrator here, and I further regret  that  I  may  have to  consider blocking  your account. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.
Hi, thank you for your welcome to Wikipedia. I've been working with Worcestershire Pubic transport data management for the past 9 years so I am very well placed to keep List of bus routes in Worcestershire up to date, and maybe expand to other pages once this is complete.

Being new, I find there is a lot I need to learn so I would be grateful for your help in pointing out any newbie mistakes that I am bound to make. Worcesterbuses (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am very  pleased to  welcome you  again, especially  as you  are from  Worcestershire and near my  home town of Malvern (although I  have lived abroad for nearly  40 years). I  am  possibly the major contributor or author of  all  the Malvern related articles on  Wikipedia, and I  also  coordinate the Wiki project  Worcestershire -  so  we need all  the help  we can get on  Worcestershire articles. Do  check  out  the project  pages, ad don't  hesitate to  let  me know if you  have any  questions. I  will  link you  to  a copy  I  have salvaged from  the Malvern article on  bus routes. I  had to  remove it  because it was too  detailed for a Wikipedia article, and it  was also  very  out  of date, but  it will  perhaps give you  some ideas  for your bus tables. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RevChain Solutions on Wikipedia
Hello, I work at RevChain Solutions and am trying to add them to the 'Telecommunications Billing' page on Wikipedia. This is a real entity with no nefarious wishes. The page lists FTS, but not RevChain. RevChain was purchased by PAETEC from FTS a year or two ago. PAETEC was acquired by Windstream. I just want RevChain in the listing, but every time I create a RevChain page it gets deleted. The first time i realized was due to duplicated content. The second I wrote from scratch, so don't understand it's deletion.

Please help, Thanks, Corey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duksauce (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RevChain Solutions
The relevance is that RevChain is an actual Telecommunications Billing Software Provider. So it should be in the list on wikipedia's page. I am not SPAMing this is actual and real.

Please help.

Thanks, Corey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duksauce (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Unfortunately you  have a page patroller and two  admins who  don't  agree with  you. Please follow the links in the various messages on  your talk  page to  see where you  went wrong. If  you  can then comply  with our policies and criteria for inclusion, feel  free to  recreate,  but  please draft  it  in  your userspace first, complete with  reliable, independent, third party  sources so  we can review it  before it  is published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I'm figuring out the issue. The RevChain page that these guys want to delete, I don't actually need. I only need to add RevChain to the Telecommunications Billing page. Which has a list of companies that provide this service. RevChain is one of these companies, in fact, it's last parent company, FTS is listed. When I attempted to edit the page and add the text and link to the website, I didn't understand your code, so it led me to create the RevChain page.

Is there an easy way to include RevChain in the aforementioned page, delete the RevChain only page and get the color of the text 'RevChain' on the Telecommunications Billing page to be blue and not red?

Today is my first day editing Wikipedia, I appreciate any help and apologize for causing any confusion.

Thanks, Duksauce Duksauce (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The RevChain article has already  been deleted. You  can add a mention  of it  to  Telecommunications Billing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Stevie Wishart
Dear Kudpung

I have a message of a proposed deletion of the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevie_Wishart. I am new to wiki so may have made some errors here ... however, the reason seems to be the lack of 'reliable sources'. I have added a few to the page now and I hope that they are formatted correctly. Does this now look OK to pass control and stay on the site.

Be very grateful for your help

thanks

Vanessa-atalanta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessa-atalanta (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (From a friend of Kudpung) Hello Vanessa-atalanta. I had a look at the article and those are enough for now. I've removed the proposed deletion tag. But I also had to remove some of the text. I left a note on your talk page explaining more about this. Best, wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: new user warning test results available
Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:


 * 1) We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
 * 2) Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit Joel Anderson?
Dear Kudpung, Tried to jump in on an article, but am not sure of direction needed-Joel Anderson- It's tagged under "Polical career", but not specific if the entire body is in question...or just "San Diego Activism." Nothing on the Talk Page is helpful. I don't want to undo what is fine, and most seems fine. Thank you. (Maybe it's better for me to start with something shorter and simpler?) Petersontinam (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That article would be quite a challenge - even for me. It's a mess. Although it  passes all  our  criteria for inclusion (unfortunately) it's nothing  more than a political  piece to  build a cult figure. Thereis very  little personal  biography  and the entire article is a rambling  screed of every  tiny  detail of the man's political  career, right  down to  the oversized mug  shot  and happy-family  photo. The early  life and family section has nothing  to  do  with  with  'the man' except for the last  four  lines.  It's typical of an article that  appears to  be designed as a vehicle for mentioning  every  every  possible referenced source that  could be found about  him. The whole article could be cut  to  a quarter of its size and still  say  enough and be too  big. Using  quotes like this: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke favorably of Anderson's legislation, and acknowledged that the state should position itself to have a "powerful stand against terrorism".[17]  and Upon news that the Governor would sign the bill, Anderson stated, "This is a common sense bill. Money is the mother's milk of terrorism."[17] is pure grandstanding. Of course, if we would cut  the article down, we would have the republicans on  our backs, but  it's typical of the many  US politiker bios that  we have. Compare the David Cameron article about  Britain's most  powerful man. It's a genuine biography rather than a campaign  brochure. Unless you  are a devout  republican, I  would suggest  looking  for  articles that  are a third of the length. Some bios that  ramble on  a bit are those about  creative professionals (musicians, artists, authors, etc.) that  badly  need recasting  for style and flow, and references. But  that's just  my  opinion -  don't  let me sway  you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for explaining. I think I should start by reading more Bio's for reference before jumping into one. I was looking at it factually, and how it was written..had not seen the grandstanding point of view. Now I understand (though I did think it weirdly had everything but the kitchen sink!). I need more experience in what is appropriate, or encyclopedic, on a Bio. BTW, neither Republican nor Democrat...right smack dab in the middle without a party. Petersontinam (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always a good idea to take other articles as an example. Some bios I have written, heavily expanded, or translated from other Wikis are Rose Garrard (written), Dominique Mainard (translated & re-edited), Christine Charbonneau (translated & re-edited),, George Sayer (written) , Hellmut Hattler (translated, expanded, & re-edited),, Julius Harrison (written),  Harvey Pittel, Edward Keonjian,  Edward Keonjian, Ursula Werner. It's possible that  other editors have since added stuff that  needs cleaning up, otherwise they  should be fairly OK to quote you as examples - but note that I'm not perfect either. Check the talk pages for any comments. To  look  for bios that  urgently  need cleaning  up, check  out Category:BLP articles lacking sources from January 2012. If you  work  on  any of these, don't  hesitate to  tag them  for anything you  can't  resolve yourself, or even deletion (WP:PROD). When you  are just  a little bit  more familiar with  our criteria for inclusion, you  may  well  find some perverse satisfaction  in  working  on  New Page Patrol; it's an essential task that  is in serious disarray  because it  strangely  does not  require a special  user right -  it  is therefore a magnet  for  very inexperienced editors. I  am trying  to  get  a bunch  of  mature, clueful, and conscientious users together who  can do  it  properly. For tagging  articles, consider installing  the WP:Twinkle tool - it  makes life so  much  easier than hunting  around to find the templates to  use. As always, don't  hesitate to  ask me for any help  or advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Made changes to Primary education; if you could please check and make any wording changes necessary. Cheers. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 07:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I trust  your editing  skills implicitly, but  I  will  take a look. Thanks for your help  on  this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Vasant Valley School
Hi, Kudpung. I know you've dealt with a lot of school-related articles. Do we have any relevant guidelines (for anything other than titles) that are specific to the topic? I can't find any. I'm especially wondering about all of the student names present in the article. I'm inclined to just kill that whole section per WP:V, but I wondered if there was anything more targeted. The article has multiple issues, to put it mildly. (Editing through a NyQuil-induced semi-stupor. Excuse any incoherence.) Rivertorch (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for pointing this out. I  have already  deleted the names. perhaps deletiing  its section  as trivia would be a good idea too. Guidelines covering  this are at  WP:WPSCH/AG,  WP:LISTPEOPLE, and of course the rules of BLP applies everywhere people are mentioned in  the encycloperida - they  must  be sourced, and minors should not  be mentioned unless absolutely  necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Yes. I think I'll leave the section tagged for a few days, and if no one improves it I'll delete it as trivia. Ditto other stuff in the article. WP:WPSCH/AG looks like an excellent resource; some of it seems sensible enough to be actual guideline, not just WikiProject guideline. Anyway, thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahh! we've been trying to  get  a consensus to  promote that  page to  'guideline' for a long  time. It  depends on  how the huge precedent  for school  notability is viewed by  editors who  may  not  fully  understand or accept policies/guidelines such  as WP:DELETION, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:PRECEDENT. If you're working  on  school  articles and not  yet  a member, don't  hesitate to  join the project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Carolina Sandoval
Hi im putting the sources right now and editting please check it when is complete thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topmartz (talk • contribs) 11:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Archery
Well that book can't be searched on Google Books, there are a few other earlier books called "Target Archery" by the same author which can be searched but I'm not sure if they're different versions of the same book or not. I don't know of any other way of checking for copyvio short of getting hold of a physical copy of the book. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 13:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm always suspicious when I  see huge chinks of well written  prose like that without  inline refs and with  only  one or two  book  sources. Maybe somebody  can get  a copy  from  a library -  perhaps DGG? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This might be helpful. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 17:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I usually  run  to  DGG when I  need anything  like that for articles I'm  working  on, but  I  don't  like to  bother him  too  much for stuff that's not  really  his concern. Asking  at  noticboards isn't  always fruitful -  it  depends how urgent it  is or how important  the issue is. There's always Moonriddengirl too  if  it's a serious copyvio.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion nomination 2 weeks after it was closed?
Can an unconfirmed user nominate an article for deletion 2 weeks after it was kept? I am speaking of the Ben Breedlove article. Thank you. Petersontinam (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomination template was removed. Someone explained to the anom that they did not use policy. Petersontinam (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know of no  such  rule, where was it  it  quoted?  Policy: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). I  see that  an attempted renomination  has been quashed and while renominating  after only  two  weeks is silly, I  can't  find any  rule that  prevents it, but  I  may  be wrong, see policy: Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.  WP:AUTOC lists what  most  editors can and can't  do if they  don't  have any  special rights. personally  I  think  it's time to  give the Breedlove article a rest -  it  doesn't  bode too  well  to  get emotionally  involved with  articles,  especially  where you  are now doing  great  job  at  looking  for articles to  clean up.  You'll  find that  working  on  articles with  detachment  will  give you  a completely  new feel for editing. You  can always choose not  to  touch  some kinds of articles; for example, I  never venture into  politics or  religion because they  are to contentious, or sport bios because they  are written by fans, and for some odd reason only  need the very  flimsiest  of references (a mere mention  on  a list  on any football  site will  do, where an esteemed professor or scientist has to  jump through a whole page of hoops in  order to  be considered notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI
I've read the report in depth and responded to it. It's a pity there are so few editors imposing scrutiny on the WMF reports at the moment. MER-C 08:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your break!
Good oh. Enjoy your research on various local beers break. :) <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 10:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * &uarr; What User:Danjel said. → Σ  τ  c . 10:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your time! Petersontinam (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Hanley Castle High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Liberal Democrat


 * Little Malvern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Staverton


 * Malvern Link (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Staverton


 * Malvern Wells (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Staverton


 * Newland, Worcestershire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Staverton


 * North Malvern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Staverton


 * Poolbrook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Staverton


 * Sherrard's Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Staverton


 * West Malvern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Staverton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

conduct unbecoming an administrator
You need to explain your accusation (on Pesky's page) that Malleus has driven away another editor.

You also need to apologize for your passive aggressive baiting of Malleus.

You are an administrator, and should not further dishonor your office.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What was TIAYN doing with the edit that was pouring spaces into the article? You reverted it and shut down the page to contribution
TIAYN did this edit [] that provoked you to revert it and shutdown the article to user contribution. TIAYN appears to have vandalized the page by pouring spaces into the reference section for the satellite state sentence making a huge space between the statement and the references. Is this vandalism? And if it is, are you going to take action against TIAYN for this?--R-41 (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

East Germany
Have you actually taken a look at my edit??? I didn't do anything, I just added "*". Seriously... Did you even take a look at my edit??? This has to be the dummest thing an administrator has ever done on wiki, blocking an article when I just improved a reference..... --TIAYN (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, friend
I'd like to suggest that User:Rick Norwood be granted Rollbacker and Auto-patrolled user rights. I see that he has started nearly 100 articles LINK and sits as the 3328th most active Wikipedian LINK. I don't know him but just bumped into his stuff today and it moved me to investigate his status. It looks like his status has been overlooked thus far. Thanks for taking a look at this, it seems like he's ready for advanced Content Creator rights... —Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

While I'm on the subject, another who needs Auto-Patrolled status, it would seem, is User:Valfontis, an administrator with 61K edits and well over 100 articles created LINK. Or are the new articles of Administrators auto-patrolled by default? Carrite (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Carrite. Unfortunately, Kudpung's taking/attempting a Wikibreak, but I'd be happy to take care of this. Regarding Rick, I agree. Autopatrolled granted. I didn't give rollback since they don't really seem to be a vandal fighter and as such, may not want the extra button (if they do want it, I'll let them know to just ask). And regarding Valfontis, Autopatrolled is indeed given to admins by default. Regards,  Swarm   X 18:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, next time before making accusations about me like I have an alt. account do your homework first. That's not nice, and I am unsympathetic to your current problems as you are to mine. It goes both ways in this life. Cadonian (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
Hi Kudpung. Morriswa and Caspertheghost were both already on the checkpage when they made their requests, but you denied their requests. Dunno if you want to switch them to approved, or remove them from the checkpage - up to you. Although I notice that you are currently inactive, so I will just mark them as approved in a week or so, if you haven't done anything by then. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ridgeway Elementary School (Wisconsin)
Kudpung, hope you'll be back here. At any rate, please have a look at the AfD and fill in the blanks I may have left (the redirect thing). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved issue
Hello, recently |I added a section to this talk page regarding the deletion of the Flight Facilities page. Unfortunately I never saw a response from you and instead the message was deleted when you edited the page, presumably to archive. I would really like to hear back from you, especially since you are the only one who could help me with this particular concern. Thank you, F orenti <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">talk  03:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT
Hi Kudpung, I see you are simply removing sections about administrative actions you've taken without response. If you are unable to comply with WP:ADMINACCT, then I would recommend that you stop taking actions altogether. Dealing with concerns about your actions is as much a part of being an admin as actually taking administrative actions, and if, due to your activity level, you can only manage to do the latter, perhaps you should not be doing either. This is not to say I don't appreciate the work you're doing, nor that I don't think you deserve a break, but taking a "half-break", where you still make random actions, can be more harmful then if you just take a full one. Thanks, - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I might be missing something, but I don't see that you have dealt with the thing I bought up, actually. Making occasional edits while reading, I don't have a problem with. However, when you're deleting and protecting articles (which you are still doing since your notice about activity) and apparently not responding to others comments, I do have an issue. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)