User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2019

The Signpost covers The Signpost?
What do you think we should do about the coverage that Smallbones' op-ed got in The Wall Street Journal and other media? It might come across as crass tooting our own horn (is that an English expression or American?)... but it is significant. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was going to  cover it  but  the WSJ is behind a firewall and there were o  links to  the others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a magic link through Twitter that works ... wait one ... ☆ Bri (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you go: if you're still paywalled try incognito ☆ Bri (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also note my roster of media coverage ☆ Bri (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Still can't  get on  to  the WSJ. You  list  only  re-reports on  the WSJ. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks  - got it. I'll do a thingy in In The Media unless you want to. It's my guess however that it will escalate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kudpung!


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

Hhkohh (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2019 (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 enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 02:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!


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

The SandDoctor Talk 02:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I hope that you have an amazing 2019 . -- The SandDoctor Talk 02:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Happy New Year! Hello Kudpung: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

HNY
from OZ JarrahTree 10:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and you too :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 Kudpung , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America1000 14:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


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

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, and your good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, Happy New Year. I hope it is the very best.  scope_creep Talk  18:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Mail call
Dropped you a line WormTT(talk) 15:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Another email coming your way
I don't have permission to access a particular Wikipedia log concerning the deletion of 2254 of my edits. Are you able access the information seen here and email it to me? Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  16:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't quite understand what you want me to look at. These deletions all appear to be U1 from your ownn user space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A Request
Hello Kudpung! Hope you are well. I just wanted your advice on an article draft that I have created here. It is for a company that has employed Performics.Convonix (where I work) to create the article. I am familiar with the WP:Paid editing guidelines and have disclosed my interest wherever intended. I have also read the AfD that previously led to the deletion of the article, which is what brings me to you. I have already submitted the article for review but thought I might also give you a heads up since you were the last person involved there. I understand your reluctance to work with COI editors, but it would be great if you could have a look. Thank you so much. Convo Agent One (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First off,, please understand that this is the English language Wikipedia, it is not the Indian Wikipedia in English, so please quote any prices on monetary units that the majority of our readers understand. When  I  was living and working in India, the currency was Rupee. Secondly,  please see the comments by the AfC reviewer and discuss the issues with him or her. Finally, your user name clearly identifies you with your COI and is likely to be blocked. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thank you for your assistance. Convo Agent One (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , most of the sources are superfluous. Scraping the Internet for every mention of a subject does not mean that a plethora of sources adds up to notability. Please see what is meant by WP:RS (in particular WP:NEWSORG); nobody is interested in every single 'news' web site and this again demonstrates that you are trying very hard to promote your organisation. Pepperfry may well be notable, but you are certainly not the person who should be writing about it in Wikipedia. If this draft is 'passed' at AfC, it will almost certainly come under the far more stringent due diligence of the reviewers at WP:NPR which may well also result in your account being blocked. - simply declaring a COI or paid editing does not authorize the use of the encyclopedia for earning a salary or promoting an emp[oyer's products and services.  If and when it hits the press that Pepperfry has been exploiting Wikipedia, it won't look good for their reputation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Thank you so much for your assistance, Kudpung. You are right, some of those references do seem redundant. I will try to make the necessary changes. As someone who is being paid by the subject, my (and my organization's) aim, while diligently following WP:COIEDIT, is to create the article ONLY if it satisfies all the necessary content guidelines, most notably WP:CORP. The subject understands the repercussions. Convo Agent One (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , the main thing is not WP:CORP, it  is paid advocacy. Meeting notability criteria does not guarantee the acceptance of paid promotion masquerading as encyclopedic articles. Please discuss this further with  your  AfC reviewer,  and refer to  this discussion.  I  also  strongly  advise you  to  read WP:ORGNAME. Many  thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd & subsequent noms
For some reason I thought our Wishlist covered the issue with the curation tools fouling 2nd & subsequent AfD noms. See this incident. What are the procedures for a 2nd AfD when using the tools? Atsme ✍🏻📧 18:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , The author of the version you just AfD'd is a blocked sock of the creator of the second iteration in 2014 so the article is a G5 and possibly a sock of the first author who created the autobio. I have therefore deleted and salted it. - and deleted and salted the draft that was lurkig around.  The article is a totally unsourced BLP. There were probably other courses to take, but if had not been a G5 I would have moved it to draft and let it rot there until it comes up for G13 in 6 months, because the author is blocked anyway and I don't think anyone really cares two hoots about this non notable subject.
 * As regards the wishlist, there was one item somewhere on the original list I compiled over time, to have articles flagged in the feed that had already been previously deleted for some reason - although considerable due diligence is required from reviewers, even I might not have thought of delving deeper into this article's history.
 * Someone needs to follow up on the wishlist results and ensure that they are being addressed at Phab (and not put on a back burner by some volunteer there). is our go-to person, but I understand he, like me, is not available 24/7 at the moment which leaves NPR with no one properly at the helm. OK, so it's 3am here and I'm going to get some sleep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , The procedure for subsequent noms is... use Twinkle? Honestly the tools are bugged when it comes to 2nd noms. This Phab task was included on the wishlist so should hopefully be addressed by the WMF this year. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Hi,

You have marked this question as answered and I am not sure why. Can you remove the 'answered' tag? I am sorry if this is not the formal way to request this. Here is the link in question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Electronic_Harassment_and_seeming_NPOV/cherrypicking_violations

--PaulGosar (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Because it's been answered by :
 * , Because it's been answered by :


 * PaulGosar, it looks like the Wikipedia community has looked at your edits and decided that they do not meet our standards, and is about to topic ban you from the area of pseudoscience. You can argue that everyone else is wrong (and you will have a chance to ask an uninvolved admin to review any TBAN in an appeal), but right now a bunch of people who don't know each other and have never edited the page in question all came to the same conclusion. But please note that absolutely nobody called for you being blocked as often happens when we are dealing with obvious vandals and trolls. This means that the Wikipedia community thinks that you can be a productive editor and improve the encyclopedia in other areas. I personally find you to be likable when you aren't lashing out at perceived attackers and think you could be a valuable and respected editor. What can we do to convince you to not give up?


 * His last question is rhetorical. My personal advice is that you now take your concerns (if you still have any), to another venue - EAR is for providing editing help and not for resolving disputes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU
thank you i am joining the anti vandal squad

Flamefire987654321 (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC) 

Hey !!
Hi, I've noticed that the page for WP:Requests for permissions/Rollback has been listed in the admin backlog. Since you're an admin would you like to review the requests, including mine? SR4 ☎ 15:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Hall (publisher)
I ran across this article today - created by a SPA and highly promotional, clearly someone with a COI. I toned down the language and then looked at the article history and saw a Move from a obscure dab page for a China geo location. Was this a way to get an article in that was salted or something else amiss? MB 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , You are absolutely right. The dab page was usurped to create an article by moving. A dab page already exists for Daniel Hall, but I don't have time to investigate further. perhaps ask one of our  current  COI  experts such  as, or make a report  directly  to  COIN.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * , I've restored Daotian to the dab page it was before the ursuption. Are you able to look into the Daniel Hall? <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 14:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019
<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 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for featuring Jytdog's essay "How" in the Signpost. What a good idea. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC).

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)