User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2017

Barbarian (Clash of Clans) - Deletion Proposal
I have looked into your proposal to delete this page, and I believe it is fitting if the page be merged into the main CoC page. Skipper1931 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kudpung!


Happy New Year! Kudpung, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Kudpung!


Happy New Year! Kudpung, Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kudpung!


Happy New Year! Kudpung, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Donner60 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I thought we were friends!
So why would you say hurtful things about me? Like suggesting I should be a bureaucrat? Why would I want all that hassle for such a dull role, only to have to recuse every time something interesting happened? ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, . I suppose it's because you belong to that very rare class of dedicated Wikipedians whose judgement is practically unimpeachable but is still fun to sit and have a few beers with, and most importantly, can put up with my company for hours on end without telling me to sod off, but who can tell me to shut up when I'm talking crap! And you're right again of course, at your age you still got far too many useful years ahead of you to be a 'crat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As Dumbledore once said, it takes a lot to stand up to your enemies, but it takes even more to stand up to your friends. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't click the link, but even at my age I'm sure it sounds like it has something to do with the other Harry. Maybe that's the link... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even you must be familiar with Dumbledore, Chris! ;) As for my judgement being unimpeachable, I think there are a fair few people who would disagree with you on that one. Probably including me, to be honest. Regardless, I'm not really interested in climbing any career ladder on Wikipedia and I certainly have no interest in being a 'crat! I'll stick to writing articles and blocking vandals and leave the bureaucracy to those who enjoy it more (though there are plenty of people who enjoy it too much in my opinion). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually,, while the works of Rawlings and the movie franchise ring a vague bell (I've had to sit through badly Thai dubbed versions of some of them while working in my office next to the living room room) I ignore their plots, content and the roles of the protagonists. Got better things to do - like reading Anthony Burgess, David Lodge, Philippe Djian, and listening to Elgar and Klaus Doldinger, and tinkering with Wikipedia bureaucracy ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter
I know you were interested in starting something like this. It's in the works! See Administrators' newsletter :) &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  20:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . Excellent. Well done. Just two points: I would be inclined to give it a bit of format (bkgnd, border, etc), and not to make it opt-in, but to make it opt-out. There are literally dozens of users from w a y back who occasionally recall that they have the admin bit and come out with the most amazing displays of ignorance of the current state of the Wiki. There is an admin mass message list here and the opt out clause I use is:

Sent to all administrators. Discuss this newsletter here]. If you no longer wish to receive these newsletters, you can remove yourself from the list [[Wikipedia:Administrators/Message list|here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed, please chime in at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter! I for one support the opt-out as well, will comment there soon &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  01:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know. I've just pooped there. Wait for the next  Arbcom  elections... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you? I checked and I don't see any Kudpung poop... &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  01:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because I posted at Wikipedia talk:Administrators where the main discussion is taking  place. I think something  should be merged one way  or the other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello :)
Hello, and first of all, wishes for the new year. I noticed your comments at Requests for adminship/Ferret. My apologies for making you feel that way. I think it's the season where I've been apologizing at least once every week to someone or the other :) Let me extend my olive branch here; if you believe I should withdraw from asking questions or !voting on Rfas for some time, I can easily do that for you. I have utmost respect for you and have no cheer to get into an argument with you. As always, sincere regards and an ever smiling hello :) Lourdes  07:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't intend to hurt your feelings, but my statement had to be made publicly as a message to others too. Most Wikipedians who have known me for longer and the many who have met me know that my bark is far worse than my bite. I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but don't rush into things too quickly. Don't ever hesitate to ask me for advice if you have something planned to say or do. Best wishes for 2017 :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a considered reply. Warm wishes and cheers for the new year. Lourdes  01:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFP/NPR
Hey there. I noticed that all of the other requests at WP:RFP/NPR have been addressed, even though mine is the oldest. If there's a reason for this, I totally understand. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missed or anything! Thanks ^-^! -- hwalk &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have left a comment  at  your PERM request. It's most  likely the reason why no one has been inclined to respond to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just updated it and left a response on WP:RFP/NPR. Thanks! bojo  &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  13:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Garageland66
The above user is continuing his POV crusade to rename UK independent schools as "private" schools. It appears quite obvious he has no intention of abiding by the existing consensus, or of seeking a new consensus for his viewpoint. As I'm not familiar with the sanctions regime on Wikipedia, could you advise on how one goes about requesting a topic ban? Your assistance would be much appreciated as I'm wasting a great deal of time going around correcting his changes. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not describe this as a 'crusade' it is no such thing and it certainly no POV. We are all engaged in trying to improve the accuracy and objectivity of Wikipedia. Rather than engaging in debate and responding to my numerous contributions on the Talk Pages (in which I have sought a consensus), you're going to try and shut down debate and establish a topic ban. I have tried to compromise by including the terms 'independent' AND 'private' yet you have not responded to this attempt at compromise. (Garageland66 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC))


 * Action taken,|. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, and will follow your advice. What a waste of time!  KJP1 (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Linda Vero Ban
An editor called User:Xi371n has a sock puppet notice and indefinitely blocked tag, but they seem to be still editing on the above article. scope_creep (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's ok. He was blocked after they edited. scope_creep (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Winchester College
Thanks for protecting the article but I think requiring admin access only is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Can you please lower the protection to the normal one that allows experienced editors like User:Chiswick Chap and myself to access the article? I have spotted a syntax error which should take me only a second to correct. Thanks. Jack | talk page 11:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry,, not yet. It's a special case and I'm not in the habit of using any of my admin tools excessively. It's only for a week. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, mate, I understand; just thought I'd ask. I've got it on watch anyway. The "minor tweak" needed is in the infobox where it says "Independent Boarding school": the "B" should be lower case Jack | talk page 12:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll do that for you . You can catch up withe back story at User talk:KJP1 and WT:WPSCH. You might wish to help with the clean up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Kudpung. Interesting case. I've reverted all of the following to a point before all the interference started: I've put watches on a few others which look okay for now. The likes of Garageland must learn to set their beliefs aside when they come on here. I've had to and, if anything, I'm probably even further left than he is. All the best. Jack | talk page 13:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yehudi Menuhin School
 * Yarm School
 * York House School, Redheath
 * Independent school (United Kingdom)
 * Westminster School
 * Shrewsbury School
 * Rugby School
 * Charterhouse School
 * Harrow School
 * Eton College


 * Thanks, . I've semi protected all the schools for two weeks in case he comes back as yet  another IP sock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Second Opinion on List of sights in Berlin
Hi Kudpung, there has been an unusual edit at List of sights in Berlin which I'd like a second opinion on. Basically the normal list format, with images to the right of the page, has been replaced with a gallery format with lists below. Whilst I appreciate it may look more artistic (and the editor is a Berlin art lover), I'm not sure it conforms to the WP:MOS and it also appears to have deleted a lot of material. However, I may be wrong and it may be perfectly acceptable. Any thoughts? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I spent the best 9 years of my life in Berlin. Not particularly a fan of city life, but I loved it there. I was proud to be able to say in an authentic local dialect  'Ik bin een Berlina!' . I knew every nook and cranny of what was then West Berlin, from the posh end at the Ku'Dam to the dingy alleys and shady nightlife of SO36, the music pubs in Spandau, and the fenced in countryside around the Wansee, but I had plenty of opportunities to to spend time on the other side of the Wall too, in the special clubs of Prenzlauer Berg, the emptiness of the vast concrete square of te Alex and down the Unter den Linden, once Berlin's Champs-Élysées and out to the awful 60s-style high rises of the Alle der Kosmonauten. Even today after periods in New York, D.C., Paris in '68, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Vienna, Zurich, Lyon, Avignon, Delhi, Melbourne, Hong Kong, Singapore and Vientiane, and several years in Bangkok before I moved up here to a remote village in the jungle, I am nostalgic about Berlin almost to the point of tears. I do have an opinion about the list of those places I know so well, but I'm not sure the MoS is prescriptive about it. Probably content should not have been edited out, but apart from that, I'll prefer to remember Berlin how it was for me, for real. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mail
Sent you a Signpost-related email. Thanks.  Go  Phightins  !  02:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , working on it. I'll try my best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, Kudpung!  Go  Phightins  !  00:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Pkolotheproducer
Hi Kudpung, could you take a look at Pkolotheproducer. It was previously deleted at Articles for deletion/PkoloTheproducer under a similar title. Is it significantly different from PkoloTheproducer? I doubt it, it's still using the same spurious refs and claims See the AfD for more. Voceditenore (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, another Admin got there and deleted it. FYI Sockpuppet investigations/Pkolo Theproducer where several ducks are quacking away. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up . based on  your  excellent  research (as always), I have blocked all  the accounts and IPs and salted all  the articles. Accounts  are indef and IPs are rather long -  12 months, but if anyone squawks (rather than quacks), we can always give them IP exemption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Patrolling
I saw your note here. Want me to request at WP:RfP and join in patrolling? --JustBerry (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can just help with deletion tagging for now. That may eliminate some of the patrolling backlog anyway. --JustBerry (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but wew: 14941 total unreviewed pages (oldest: 4691 days) --JustBerry (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A query..(AfC)
Recently, while reviewing AFC submissions, I went through a draft about a topic which was already there in the main space(albeit under a slightly different name).But as a matter of fact the draft is far more detailed and better in quality than the existing version.I understand that (prob.) under no cases the draft could be accepted but supposedly if I wanted to merge the contents, would a simple copy and paste suffice or I have to ask for a hist. merge since the draft was participated upon by many editors before it came to it's current state. Winged Blades Godric 13:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , this is an entirely new problem and one which I at least have never come across. There are several ways of looking it: one thing you can't do is a copy-and-paste move because that would lose the attribution(s), and sooner or later the draft is going to be deleted - probably. Much depends however, on the extent of the content of each article and whether the majority of edits are bots and cleanups or actual content. It also depends on which direction the merge should take place. To avoid the loss of the attributions, for example, the content of the older article could be merged to the more recent draft, the draft moved from draft to mainspace, and the older draft 'soft' redirected - that is blanked but not deleted. On the talk page one would put a notice template that says 'This article contains content merged from.....' and on the redirect, add the  Template:R from merge - read all about it to see what it does. That solution needs neither admin action nor complex hist.merging. You don't provide a link to either page so I can't really be sure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Draft:Jay B. Starkey Wilderness Park is the draft link. Regrets for failing to provide the link earlier. I have actually done such selective page mergers quite a many times but I am a bit reserved about a merge between a draft and an article. Winged Blades Godric 08:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't know if you  are aware of it but  the original  creator of the first  article is indef blocked and will  not  be returning. I  would certainly  merge any  usable content  from  the original  article, approve (after compliance  with  guidelines and policies) the draft, move it  to  mainspace, blank  the older article and make a soft  redirect  of it.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That was some new knowledge for me. I certainly thought that even if a heavily improvised version of a lack-lustre article currently in mainspace is put under a draft, we will never ever allow the draft to take precedence and be inducted into fhe mainspace with the older one being redirected. (There's even an option in the AFCH script that allows a reviewer to decline a draft because a duplicate already exists in the article mainspace).  Winged Blades Godric 11:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick question
User:Xfactor1234 creating loads of unreferenced template articles. Thoughts? --JustBerry (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus User_talk:Xfactor1234 - WP:ISU --JustBerry (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, 2017 Toyota Premier Cup was created unreferenced, but 2011 Toyota Premier Cup, 2012 Toyota Premier Cup, or 2013 Toyota Premier Cup don't have any references either. I just see passing references here and here to the Toyota Cup in general. --JustBerry (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thirdly, Zhu Futang has references in Chinese (not really able to evaluate notability as a patroller). --JustBerry (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on the above? Noticed you were online. --JustBerry (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , well that's not really quite a quick question ;) but here goes:


 * You'll see that has been doing this for ten years. They are totally unresponsive, their talk page is just a long successions of warnings, and this  demonstrates that they will remain unresponsive. They have a passion for what they are doing (which is almost certainly due to something I can't discuss here), they believe it to be entirely in good faith, and most of the edits appear to be  useful. However, we can't allow them to continue to add red links everywhere to non notable people who don't have Wikipedia articles. Those edits must be reverted and the user asked to stop doing it. I'm extremely hesitant to make a great deal of fuss about it, but harsh as it may seem, in some cases a short block is often the only way to elicit any response at all from such editors.
 * 2017 Toyota Premier Cup is relatively harmless and it does have references. Check them out, find out who created it and if they are still active, drop them a line on their talk page about WP:CITE.
 * Zhu Futang is probably notable. Run the sources through Google Translate and see what you get. Talk to the creator if necessary.
 * I would be very interested to read my good friend 's opinions, maybe he's got some better ideas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies. For Xfactor1234, they seem to have created a series of template-like articles for in television. How would you recommend handling Special:Contributions/Xfactor1234? Unless the user has demonstrated some progress (for which the draftspace is usually more ideal), the article-template creation doesn't seem useful. For 2017 Toyota Premier Cup, I dropped a line for the editor earlier (will watch out for their reply). The third article seems notable. --JustBerry (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , I've explained as much as I dare about  Xfactor's editing  profile which  I  have closely  examined. Try  to  reach  out  to  him (I see you've already  left  some messages on  his tp), but  chances are he doesn't  even know he has a tp, so  as I  said, unfortunately,  a short  block  might  be the only  answer to  elicit  some response. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a brief comment here. I largely agree with Kudpung, and I see certain characteristics with this editor that are quite common across a sub-group of Wikipedia editors. A block might indeed be the only way to get his attention, but it might just have the effect of driving him away. I'm really not sure what I'd do. Are the subjects of his articles really worth our spending the time on? I'm not sure I'd worry too much about them, to be honest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite right . I  remember years ago such  an editor  with  an identical  pattern, was blocked for just  24 hours and they  disappeared never to  return. As  a teacher, I  see pupils and students with  similar traits and they are usually referred to some form of assistance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sciences Po
Hi there, I've closed the heated discussion there on whether it is in fact a University. I propose to lift the page protection to allow general editing but thought I'd check in with you first.... does that seem OK? I will keep it on my watchlist! Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  15:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

someone you blocked before doing it again
[1] You did warn him about "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour". He is renominated an article he failed to delete before [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (website) (2nd nomination)]] and has canvased votes on the talk page  to ping 5 users he felt would say "delete" including those who would voted "delete" previously.  If you check the edit history of the article you can see him failing to get it deleted the first time, then over the next few months constantly trying to add and readd in pointless tags to it, trying to prod it for speedy deletion, and recently renominating it.    D r e a m Focus  10:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry,, I'd help  if I  could but I have followed your  links but  one is to  an ANI archive with  over 100  cases and I can't  sift  through them all. Anything else appears to  be a cmoment  by   one of our  most  highly  respected users and Arbcom  member. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The ANI archive URL was missing its last character - it should be this section, and the offender is apparently User:Light2021. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see only 2 of the 4 pinged people responded. If this is canvassing, it was not very effective. But yes,  does need a reminder. And I think everyone knows that if I am asked to look at something I use my own judgement, and may well do something other than what was appareetly hoped for . So do most people.  DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - reminder issued. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Articles for deletion/Reactions on the Cancellation of WITS Academy
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Reactions on the Cancellation of WITS Academy. I trust your judgement as to whether this qualifies for speedy deletion or not. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for keeping Quisk article
I was on vacation and was suprised that the article on Quisk I had written was deleted. Arguments to keep and revised the article are the following:
 * Quisk has grown into an international company
 * It is important for people to read and understand the importance of the (a) technology (b) details on the corporation
 * Secondary sources include:
 * September 04, 2016 - War of the wallets: Quisk and Mozido face off - BY AVIA COLLINDER Business reporter collindera@jamaicaobserver.com - David Koerner, director of marketing at Quisk, said this week that the mobile money solution which allows telephone users to send money to each other — developed for use by the National Commercial Bank — is the best now available on the market.
 * November 24, 2016 - Quisk heralds e-commerce Micro-Transactions for Jamaican Entrepreneurs - Lindsworth Tech News, Caribbean Tech, Press Release - There is a huge untapped business potential associated with using Mobile Money. So says Douglas Halsall, Chief Executive Officer of AIS (Advanced Integrated Systems), who was presenting at the Jamaica Computer Society IT Knowledge Forum held at the Jamaica Conference Centre on November 17th 2016. He was speaking of the on business opportunities that individuals can embark on with the use of digital cash and mobile payments. He was also encouraged by the significant traction gained in the market by mobile money solution, Quisk as detailed in NCB’s Quisk Mobile Money off to a good start in Jamaica.
 * December 06, 2016: NATIONAL Commercial Bank (NCB) Jamaica limited, which has been chosen to undertake the pilot project to provide electronic mobile payments of benefits under the Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education (PATH) with the bank’s mobile money platform, NCB Quisk, will roll out its pilot programme next month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know the best way to re-post this article on Quisk? Thanks, Greghenderson2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I only read the consensus and applied it. Your comments aboove are very promotional towards the subject. Re-reading  Articles for deletion/Quisk, I  think  the comments  of the participamts are appropriate. The  deleted article in  its  last  version in  my  opinion, if not  blatant advertising,  is nevertheless a deliberate  attempt at  a company  listing like LinkedIn and is unlikely to be restored or accepted as a repost - indeed such  attempts  may result  in  being blacklisted against  further recreation .  Do  bear in  mind  also that  although  paid editing  may  be permitted under some rare exceptions, the tolerance of it  by  the unpaid volunteers who  run  Wikipedia is very  low and deletion discussions  will  invariably  result  in  a consensus to  delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Kudpung for your comments. I have read Articles for deletion/Quisk. Below are additional reasons for the article to be restored and accepted as a repost: - Quisk is notable as it the only mobile payments solution that uses just a mobile phone number and PIN, eliminating the requirement that a consumer carry cash, credit cards or even the physical mobile phone in order to purchase goods. - The mpact on the community is that the public is now able to make everyday purchases and to send and receive money with their mobile phones - Steven Anderson from 'Payment Week' is a secondary source who said: "Quisk, essentially, digitizes cash and allows it to be used with mobile platforms as though handing over physical cash even to an online storefront." - Quisk is notable in that it has been awarded a U.S. patent for a security feature that enables consumers to "lock" their digital cash account anytime to prevent unauthorized use. - Quisk is significant for laying the groundwork to forge ahead in the digital economy - Quisk provides significant value for merchants and consumer via digital cash transactions, digital marketing and loyalty programs - Governments and Banks recognize the uniqueness of Quisk as a way to make electronic payments - How is Quisk any different than other startups like Hightail?

Please help on the steps to repost?

Greghenderson2006 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking in, as I see it. none of the above show that you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Most of them are just advertising statements, most of them remarkably vague and nonspecific. Your proposed article amounts to a press release, and Wikipedia is not intended for that purpose.  DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * How is Quisk any different than other startups like Hightail? What suggestions do you have to repost? How do I submit for a deletion review? '''Greghenderson2006 (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , you have already  been told,, here it is again: Deletion review. You have  also  been told that  this article is blatant  advertising.  You  can try, but it  stands no  chance of being refunded. You  are now getting  dangerously  close to  loosing  your  editing  privileges. Please see WP:IDHT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , are you being compensated for writing the article under discussion here? Yes or no? It is screemingly obvious you have some sort of vested interest here. You have not complied with the Legally binding terms of use in regards PAID editing and IMO one of the administrators following this conversation should block you immediately until you comply. Paid editing is an anathema to Wikipedia's purpose, but in your case, as you cannot even reasonably format a conversation, it is approaching a fraud. How do you take money to do something you have so little skill at? John from Idegon (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:RKC Vakwai
Hi Kudpung. I saw from this post you've made at User talk:RKC Vakwai that you are able to communicate with RKC Vakawai. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind helping out again because the user still seems to not really understand Wikipedia policy regarding non-free content use. I've posted some stuff on their user talk, but I'm not sure how well they understand English. FWIW, I'm not trying to get anyone blocked, but RKC Vakawai's user talk is pretty much filled with image-related notifications. So, if they are having problems with their uploads, then it might be a good idea for them to ask for help at WP:MCQ before uploading any more files. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * . I have never really been able to  communicate with  . I  left  a message in  Thai  on  their talk  page which  was answered in Thai that fully demonstrated that they either do not understand copyright (Thailand is one on the world's major centres of copyright infringment, plagiarism, and theft of intellectual property), or if they do, they have no intention of complying with it. Previously blocked. Now blocked again, it's unfortunately the only way to deal with such issues when the user believes they are acting in good faith. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. It is unfortunate that this has resulted in a block, but understandable given the problems this editor seems to have using copyrighted images. I've previously tried to discuss kind of thing with them, but there still seems to be a lack of understanding regarding non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping
I got your ping, but I don't remember saying that. Are you sure you weren't looking at someone else? –xenotalk 06:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I might have got my wires crossed. I'll check. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See: Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat. Nothing that needs your intervention - just a courtesy ping that I had mentioned your name.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something, where on that page did I advise Hawkeye to wait a year or two? –xenotalk 03:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I still may have my wires crossed. I'll check again. It's absolutely not my intention to deliberately misquote you - I think you realise that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , it was Bureaucrat in his comment here, which was just above yours. Apologies for the confusion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I know you weren't deliberately misquoting me. Just didn't sound like something I'd normally say :) –xenotalk 07:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on an username
I recently met with an username--Acbdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzzyuvwxyz whose first two edits were plain intentional disruption.Now, the question is whether such an username is allowed by the concerned policy and whether the continuation of the nature of the first edits could mean an early block for the editor than usual.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 16:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Troll already blocked by another admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Tor Exit Node...
Probably not, at least not a public relay. Looking at this? Seems inconsistent per this, though. Feel free to refer to this in the future as well. --JustBerry (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sean Madigan Hoen
Hello,

I created a page for myself (Sean Madigan Hoen) two days ago, but you deleted it. I'm a bit confused. I'm a widely-published author and recording musician. My work has been reviewed in nearly every major publication and albums I made continue to be remastered and repressed. My 2014 book was a Rolling Stone Top-10 book of the year. I used objective prose. If I haven't cited properly, please let me know. But I'm well aware that there are less established authors and musicians with Wiki pages, so I'm confused. Please let me know what the problem is.

Thanks very much, Sean00:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)73.10.181.97 (talk)


 * Hi. The article was deleted for a number of issues that contravene our policies and guidelines, including the pre-set tags which you chose to ignore for:

Unfortunately, writing about yourself is also a big no no. If you are sufficiently important or significant then there will be extensive 3rd party articles about you in the mainstream press, and someone independent of you will write a encyclopedia article about you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (January 2017)
 * This article has an unclear citation style. (January 2017)
 * This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real *This article should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible.


 * For what it's worth, I've taken a look and it appears that Hoen is, indeed notable. I will try to put something together in sandbox space before re-creating and suggest that Hoen waits before trying to create the article about himself again.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

gracias senor
hola JarrahTree 13:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-01
Latest news from the Wikimedia Collaboration team, about Notifications, Flow and Edit Review Improvements. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.

What's new?

Our goal to add filters to the Recent Changes page is going well. We will contact soon some communities - the ones where ORES is available as a Beta feature - to plan a possible trial.

Edit Review Improvements [ More information • Help pages ]

Recent changes
 * Translation icon cropped.svg Edit Review Improvements' Glossary is ready for translation.

Notifications [ More information • Help pages ]


 * Revert notifications were not received on Wikidata. This is now fixed.

Flow [ More information • Help pages ]


 * We plan to change Flow's URLs to make them more human readable. Your feedback is welcome.
 * Communities which have allowed Flow trials with manual enabling (Hebrew Wikipedia, Persian Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia) will be asked if they want to switch to Beta feature activation.
 * A small maintenance on Flow database will happen during week 4. No impact is expected.

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What happened here?
Hi, Kudpung! Got a question for you and any stalkers: What happened here? A user wanted to move the page "Trump University" to "Trump Entrepreneur Initiative". There was a page in the way - a redirect. But instead of requesting G6 for an admin to delete the page, the user seems to have deleted it themselves, using G6 and the edit summary "deleted by overwriting". What in the world is overwriting, and how can it be used by a user who has fewer than 100 edits to delete a page? I couldn't find anything about "delete by overwriting" in a search, so I thought I should turn to the person of my acquaintance who knows the most about Wikipedia. (That would be you.) Thanks for any information! --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello MelanieN. This happens since Aug 2016 as described at WP:MOR. Non-admins can move a page over a redirect if the redirect has no history to lose - normally the restoration of a previous name - as we see in the 31 August entries here; and when they do it's logged as a deletion by them, as here, where the edit summaries were added automatically (presumably these edit summaries have been reworded since then) <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  21:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Noyster, I was sure someone here would know. Looks like this would even permit move-warring; I wonder if that's a good idea? Anyhow that answers the question and thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Indragopal_high_school
I wasn't aware a user right was required to NPP - if so - then IAR because it really does not seem to meet criteria of inclusion. To quote from it. the eye catching School Building,  classrooms quite spacious and open to sunshine and air. selected purely on the basis of requisite qualification,  and teachers and guide and the student with loveliness and tender. Each classroom in the the school bears up -to-date teaching  trained librarian, ''. the responsive management is also thinking of getting the school upgrade to HS Level.''. After you remove the promotional bits, there's nothing left. Hence this seems to be clear G11 material, but if you think otherwise, no worries. 2401:A400:6202:6500:990D:A336:4C39:CB17 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way: if IP users are not allowed to create articles, why should they be allowed to police them? That's my IAR. That besides, you don't use the correct CSD criteria and there is no way we can force IP users to do things correctly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you check the revision history of the now-deleted page, another editor tagged it as G11, so you should probably give them the same mouthful I got. I think your implication my tag was manifestly inappropriate is contentious at best and your bitey response certainly not appropriate. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy preventing IP users tagging articles for deletion Your opinion is as good as mine. Cheers, 2401:A400:6202:6500:34A8:E3:8D73:94E5 (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

hill glider delition
I must have a made a mistake. I started to work on the page for a product I have invented. I think I should have started in the sandbox I followed the wrong directions.

Can you move the page to my sandbox, or do you just delete the page, I start a new one in my sandbox and when ready migrate it over to a real page?

Will this mistake disable me from making a page for hill glider?

Thanks Bildakid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bildakid (talk • contribs) 13:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your topic will not meet any encyclopedia inclusion criteria any time soon, and please see WP:COI. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand if a user can write about their product it really jeopardizes the integrity of Wikipedia.

My business partners asked me to get the page up since we are going to be on discovery in a couple weeks, do I hire someone to write an article about the product?

We have been on the cover of the Ottawa newspaper as well coast to coast CanadianBildakid (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC) tv news, it's a real product but I know what you say I can't write about it. Just want to make sure I go about things in the right way, any help is greatly appreciated.Bildakid (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately,, paying someone to  do  it  is even worse -  it  could get  them blocked and banned from  the Wikipedia and your organistion  blacklisted form  appearing  in  it. Wikipedia is run by  unpaid volunteers who  understandably  have an aversion to  people  and companies who  intend to  maximise their market  presence with  an article or who  solicit  payment  for their editing. If your company and/or its product meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, then someone totally unconnected with your organisation will take the initiative to write an article about it, but we do not pre-empt notability. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, and you will need to make that clear to your business partners. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung กุดผึ้ง I do want to go about things in the right way. Thanks again for clearifing the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bildakid (talk • contribs) 04:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung
My name is Corinna Hasofferett.

I am a 81 years old published writer of Hebrew literary fiction and narrative nonfiction, as well as the Founder and President of Hilai, a peace oriented International artist colonies which I've run for 11 years in Israel, until I had to undergo a complicated heart operation, a challenge I have to encounter since my childhood during the Holocaust in Romania..

Among the numerous articles and Prizes relating to my work. are the BCLA - British Comparative Literature Association, Volume 18 pp 173 -196 on the occasion of granting their first prize to my novella 'Relevation';

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=5HcuajelWrsC&pg=PA3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

a page on myself and my literary work etc on the Ohio University Lexicon of Hebrew Modern Writers (in Hebrew) compiled independently by Prof. Joseph Galron-Goldschläger;  https://library.osu.edu/projects/hebrew-lexicon/00256.php

many video interviews, some on Israeli TV channels, as well as three residencies at the Yaddo, Ledig writers retreat.

Following some edits at a Hebrew page found on wikipedia, at which I was most kindly and respectfully assisted by one excellent reviewer continuously, I proceeded to a page in English, which being too tired, I did not manage to complete on the spot.

Unfortunately, it included a seemingly mistake - a few lines of text which I was asked to provide for the editor of Archipelago e-zine and they might have copyrighted. To my surprise and anguish, the English page got speedy deletion.

Here started a Kafkaesque slide: the issue was dealt by some four or five reviewers. As I asked for the page to be undeleted so that I could replace the problematic text with a free one, no one related to my request and reasoning. I felt like talking to the wall. The last reviewer/editor went so far as to claim the links provided to satisfy 'proof of notability' - such as the above listed, were penned by me or no good since the BCLA Prize and article are not in wikipedia, etc.

I'm looking forward to your response and help in order to rectify.

Yours, In Thanks, --שוחרת (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרתשוחרת (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yunshui#Request_from_User:.D7.A9.D7.95.D7.97.D7.A8.D7.AA
 * Issues such as this are not the focus of my specialism on Wikipedia. I have asked a colleague who is more competent than I am to review the matter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, dear Prof. 'Kudpung',

I turned to you as I read you wise advise to reviewers to use benign and intelligent communication in their conversations.

Wishing you much happiness in your life.

As we say in Israel and elsewhere, since we are getting close to Shabbat's eve: Shabbat Shalom!

Yours, In Thanks, שוחרת (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת Corinna Hasofferett about.me/CorinnaHasofferett שוחרת (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)שוחרת

Sean Madigan Hoen
Hello,

You deleted my page for author/musician Sean Madigan Hoen. Could you tell me why? Would it be possible to re-publish the page I made, and I will amend any errors in citation that may have caused the deletion? SMH is a subject that has numerous credible sources. Please let me know what I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.10.181.97 (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, IP users are not able to create pages. Hence you are not the creator, and it's not 'your' page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hm...

 * (see userpage). --JustBerry (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (see userpage). Doesn't seem like a real WP:U5 here. What do you think? --JustBerry (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind: pinging currently active admin. --JustBerry (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I was pinged; please note the second username is not registered. The first seems odd and it would be worth watching their edits, but I'll bet Kudpung's mop they never edit again.. -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 12:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed second link. Username is registered. --JustBerry (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah right - yeah definitely not U5. Have you seen my user page.. -- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 12:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess the third person was the tipper. I see what you're saying. --JustBerry (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Imagine EntertainmentNP
The editor who reviewed this page has many patrolling problems. Even with new page patrol rights, articles will pass in Wikipedia, if this type of editors are given rights. -- <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  17:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Forwarding complaint regarding 's grandfathered patrolling rights. Pinging right-granting admin (even though the right was grandfathered) as well. --JustBerry (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the permission. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:ISE International School
G'day, Kudpung, not sure if you are already aware of this, but Draft:ISE International School has been nominated for a G13 deletion as a draft that hasn't been edited in over six months. As you appear to have done some clean up work on the draft in the past, I'm just letting you know in case you wanted to keep working on it. I won't action the G13 for awhile to give you a chance to edit the draft if you decide you want, but obviously someone else might hit delete in the meantime. Anyway, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , Good catch.Thanks. I'll look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

4444
I use endless IP's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.175.160 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion on reblock of User:Light2021
You may recall blocking this user per this ANI discussion. I'm somewhat involved, as I made the mistake of giving them a second chance after his first indef block, and then initiating the aforementioned AfD; as such, I'm hesitant to unilaterally reblock. Since being unblocked in January, Ligh2021 renominated this article for deletion, four months after his first nomination had resulted in a no-consensus. After the 2nd AfD resulted in another no-consensus, Light2021 proposed a merge for the article. I see this as slowly edging back towards the same problematic behavior that resulted in the last block (essentially, abuse of deletion processes). User:Boing! said Zebedee, your opinion is welcome as well. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Respecting decisions by members, I am hardly participating in self AfD like in the past, and looking for others opinions first on that matter. If you keep on going blocking me or ask other to do it, gives biased opinion on me or driven by past actions, it does not really give a scope to see my efforts or improvement in this manner. If you go from December till date, I have not made any arguments to anyone, I am maintaining standards expected by community. If it is all about that Forever article, it always closes as No consensus, it means I am not the only one who see this article as not worthy. as explained on my Talk page as well. It is justified by wiki norms. I have nominated as per standards. I have no biased toward any article. You can go and check my work from December and my behavior and decide whether it is improved. I welcome your suggestions and guidance to be better. Thank you. Light2021 (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To save following the links, this was my closure of the ANI:
 * Now at day 10 and still dragging on, there is a clear consensus for a block. In view of this log which does not inspire confidence that there will be an immediate change in behaviour, and considering that the patience and good will of admins such as and other admins and users here has been tested to the limit, and as  suggests, a block is more easily enforceable than a complex topic ban, I am blocking  for 1 month after which further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here.
 * Considering the weight of the comments of some highly respected admins at that ANI, including, I'm incined to suggest that a 2-month block at this juncture might help to impress upon User:Light2021 that tendentious behaviour and deliberate, persistent testing of the community's patience is not to be tolerated. Let's see what says. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If Light2021 can't drop the stick when things aren't going their way, they need to be made to drop it. I agree with Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, and would recommend a 2-month block as standard progression from the previous 1-month block, especially after their impressive block record. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)