User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jun 2010

Elgar again
Following your helpful comments on my earlier additions to the article on Edward Elgar, I wonder if you might be inclined to contribute to the peer review for which I have just put the article forward. Any contributions will be most gratefully received. – Tim riley (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tim, the comment I  made was purely  on  a technicality  of MOS. Apart  from  the facts  that  I had to  learn  some of Elgar works at an early  age and that  I  come from  Malvern, my  interest  in  the Wikipedia article is mainly  due to  it's being  with  the scope of the WP:WORCS which  I  manage. Brianboulton is far more qualified than I to make a peer review of this article, and his comments are excellent. The prose of the article is superb and has just  the right  measure of formality for a page of this nature. According  to MOS, The lead section  must  also have inline refs. I have fixed a few naked URLs. As this is strictly  a British  article, there may  be some consensus for displaying  the source retrieval dates in  D-M-Y format, however, I  have been criticised in  the past  for insisting  on  British  English  in  articles about  Britain  and British  people by  British  contributors, so to  avoid any  disruptive editing from  anyone, I  strongly  suggest  you obtain  a second opinion. Although  I  feel  you  have something  that  may  well  be FA material, is there any  particular reason  why  you  don't  try  for GA first?--Kudpung (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My practice in British articles is always to use UK date format. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Silvers, I don't  recall  ever suggesting  you  don't. An editor  asked my  opinion on  anything  he might  have missed while cleaning  up  an article for a possible FA nom, and I  pointed out that  there are some date formats that  might  not  be British. I'm  not  personally  concerned with  the article but  I  did jump  in on the fly  with  a couple of uncontentious minor tweaks. I  left  the date formats as they  were to  avoid any  conflict and to  let  the major contributor(s) decide for themselves.--Kudpung (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you misunderstand me. I'm just supporting your idea that D-M-Y format is correct for Brit articles.  Indeed, I think the MOS says so.  I did not intend to criticize anything you did, quite the contrary.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your new comments on my talk page. I am truly grateful for your interest and help. I've checked out the You Tube and Alt Text guidelines - the latter very helpful, the former leaving me a bit unsure of the proprieties in the case of that old Elgar film. But I struggle with your point that the lead should be fully referenced just like main bodies of texts. I can't remember seeing any front page articles where this is so. Certainly in today's (Mycena haematopus) and its three predecessors it isn't. There is one (rather strangely numbered) footnote (in Loihi Seamount) between all four of them. Has there, perhaps, been a change in policy across the years? - Tim riley (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:LS : The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. (The bold type is mine). See also Malvern, Worcestershire, for example, a GA that I contributed to. I hope this helps Tim.--Kudpung (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again I must thank you for your most encouraging and helpful contributions. If I can ever reciprocate on any article you'd like to be checked I shall be at your service. - Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if ther requirement for references in  the lead may  be slightly  more flexible than I thought. See this: WP:LEADCITE - another perfect example however where because different bits of policy  are written  by  different  groups of editors, they  sometimes seem confusing, or even be contradictory  at  times.--Kudpung (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Côte-Rôtie AOC
Having just (supra) asked for your help on Elgar, I now, by sheer coincidence, find myself disagreeing with you on the talk page of this article. At your service to discuss points that you think need improving. - Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My own  style of prose for the encyclopedia tends to  be slightly  more formal  that  the langauge used in  the XXX for Dummies books. However, as it  is far from  my  intention  to  impose my  style on  others, do feel  free to  remove the tags - I  won't  start  an edit  war over it. There are nevertheless however some areas that indeed read like the author's own  impressions. This may  of course be entirely  unitentional, but  as they  currently stand they  probably need either rewording, or sourcing to  avoid WP:OR or WP:POV -  perhaps from  the same books that  have been used, but  I  do  not have access to  them. You  might  like to  make any  further comment  on  the article's talk  page where I  feel  it  would be more helpful to  othesr who  may  wish  to  comment.--Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this steer. I shall revisit accordingly and add additional references where needed. Tim riley (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your later comments on my talk page noted and gratefully received. That's most accommodating of you. I hope my changes will meet with your approval in due course. Tim riley (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, I've now taken a look at the Côte-Rôtie "wikilinking dispute", and replied at Talk:Côte-Rôtie AOC. I'm sorry it took me a couple of days to get around to doing this. It is definitely true that Wikipedia (and in particular this language version) has a tendency to sometimes cause irritation and involve "harsh words", although I honestly haven't seen too much of the latter in this case. I've come to known all three of you as very constructive editors in the Wine Project - Agne as the all-round force behind much of the project, Stefan as a bit of Australia and a bit of all-round, and you as the Rhône contributor par excellence (nice to hear that you've appreciated my encouragement...), so I'm very sorry to see disagreement between such editors. While not any real edit-warring took place, and the exchange of views remained at a "moderate level" compared to some other disputes we've had, I notice that you got quite frustrated about it all. I can only say that I have also taken longer and shorter breaks from this project, and from this language version in its entirety when I've felt like it, and I have not always planned to come back at the times when I've left. In short, I would like to welcome you back to editing Rhône-related and other wine articles, whenever that is (and I don't mind it being sooner rather than later). And I've understand that in the meantime, there are also other strings on your Wikipedia lute. Take care, Tomas e (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Review - Wellingborough
Just like to let you know that Wellingborough is being reviewed from today for GA. Likelife (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm  rather busy  in  real  life at  the moment  but  I'll  try  to  hang  in  there and address any  suggestions the reviewer makes, if I  can.--Kudpung (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very learned person and interested in languages and cultures so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA Oppose
I'm not going to challenge your oppose here at all, but I replied there asking what article got deleted at AfD (because I can't find it) and which article is unsourced (I can't find that either). I'd like to know so that I can fix the unsourced article. Thanks NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, NativeForeigner. Your message comes because I'm one of the few RfA voters who  takes the trouble to explain  why  I support, oppose, or remain  neutral;) I  don't  really  want  to  do  the same researches all  over again, but if you  are an aspiring  sysop  candidate, you  will  already  know how to  find them. I  use toolserver.  You  might  not  have been the creator of the article that  got  AfD, but  you will have contributed to  it; the generic AfD warning is on  your talk  page. The unreferenced article has two notes but  not  verifiable sources, and  no inline references in  compliance with  WP:V and WP:CITE. You've only  created four short articles up til  now so  it  shouldn't  be too  hard to  locate. I  think  the rest  of my  reason for opposing  is quite self explanatory and I  hope it  has been of help - challenging  votes on  an RfA is not  a good idea anyway - if the 'Crats are doing  their job properly, they  look  at  the votes as a guideline and rather than  as a score -  in  much  the same way  as we reach  a consensus on anything,  they  will do  their own research and decide how they  close the application. FWIW I try  to put  myself in the position  of a candidate for RfA when I  vote -  you  can  look  at  my  user page - I  wouldn't  even support myself for RfA! It's early  days yet and your RfA may  well succeed in  spite of my  oppose. However, if it were to fail,  you  can  be sure that  the next  time round, you  will find in  me a strong  supporter :) --Kudpung (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Challenging opposes is quite blatantly stupid. Thanks for the time. I've identified the articles in question, and am now aware what you are talking about. I didn't even know You Are There got expanded so much, I'll have to go and clean it up. Regards, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A good tip is to keep  all articles and talk  pages you  have ever contributed to on your watch  list,  and check  your  watchlist  at  least  once a day or even RSS feed it. You  can  adjust  your user settings to  automaticaly  put  every  page you  edit  on  your watchlist. The watchlist, although  IMO probably the most  important  tool  for regular editors, is often the most  ignoreed.--Kudpung (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Brontë
Hi Keith. I have translated, edited, and created the page Arthur Bell Nicholls (Charlotte's husband). It still  needs cats, a good proofread, and the translation  tpl  putting  on  the talk page as per © requirements. If you have time, could you  please check it  over. I have put some project  banners on  the talk  page, but  if they  are the wrong  ones, please change them.

I think it's time to  move the main  Brontë article translation from  my  user space to  mainspace. Shall I  be bold and just  do  this? I don't  think we need to  conserve all our editing  talk or the history  of the translation's development.--Kudpung (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and done it. I have greatly edited stuff out and started creating some main  articles from it  with  more to  come. See Talk:Brontë, Arthur Bell Nicholls, and  Cowan Bridge School. The next  new page to  follow is Patrick Brontë.--Kudpung (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just spotted the Brontë article, and have removed the duplicate end sections. I notice there is 2 different ISBNs for Barker, Juliet R. V. (1995). The Brontës. London: Phoenix House. One in the Bibliography section & the other in the Further reading. I am unsure what the difference is or which one was used for the page numbers in the article. Keith D (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem comes from the French  article. The inline citations do  not  give an  ISBN but  refer to Barker (1995). Two editions are listed in  the biliography  as:
 * (en) Juliet Barker, The Brontës, St. Martin's Press, 1996 (ISBN ISBN 0-312-14555-1).
 * (en) Juliet Barker, The Brontës, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, puis Phœnix Giants, Londres, 1995, 1002 p. (ISBN 978-1857990690).
 * Thus I assume that  the Frebnch  ediors used the ISBN 978-1857990690 version. Unless we have access to  both versions of the print media, there is no  way  of knowing for sure. --Kudpung (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that in that case we just remove the one from the further reading section as it just confuses things. Keith D (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Keith D (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) --Kudpung (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wellingborough
Hi, I did the changes to the article as you suggested and I think it flows better, doesn't look so bitty. Can't help with Demography or Landmarks though, sorry. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help. It  really  does look  better. There's nothng  more that  I  can  do  to  improve the article either. We'll have to sit  back  and wait  for the reviewer's verdict. --Kudpung (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, shuffling is easy, finding the info is much harder, sorry I can't do more.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
By the way, I fixed an error in your edit notice. Please revert if it was supposed to be like that, though. :) Theleftorium (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please cease your personal attacks
Hi Kudpung. WP:NPA says " Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". I've ignored your wikihounding  up to now, but this and this clearly cross a line. Please refactor these edits immediately and do not launch any further personal attacks.--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There were no personal  attacks, just  statements  of fact  concerning  the clear pattern of your method of conducting  dialogues with  other editors. No one has stooped to  the level, for example, of accusing you of being  a hazard to  the encyclopedia because of your age, your health, and your typing  skills. Three serious, mature, regular editors  all  have a right  to  discuss how best  to  help editors who  have problems understanding  the rules and guidelines -  that's the way  it  works here,  and we're here to  help.--Kudpung (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit to Received Pronunciation
Hi Kudpung, greetings from the UK! I just wanted to sound you out about this edit. All I want you to know is that if you see the nature of the immediate edits prior to mine, you'll see a line of IPs deleting information without explanation and commentary posted by a red-link username. I assumed the whole thing to be a series of non-constructive contributions and that is why I reverted to the particular revision that I did. Now because of your own decent editing background and your edit summary, I'm taking your point at your word (without checking the talk history). Just to clear up, I thought I was battling vandals. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, you'll see that  I  put  a warning  template on  user Shannon4Toby's talk page on  17 June already. Whether they  were intended or not, his/her edits were not  constructive. Somehow in  the confusion  the good material  got  removed. No worries.--Kudpung (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest with you Kudpung - I did spot your Level 1 warning administered to this clown user. I couldn't figure out however why you didn't remove the material; but the IP did, and when the IP did so, he/she took out the other material that it now emerges was correct to be removed, but less any kind of summary, so it all looked like vandalism. All sorted now anyhow. By the way, I did leave you a note in the talk page of the subject concerning your own register! Nothing drastic or deadly serious, but when you get time, have a look. Sleep well as it's approaching 1am in Thaliand. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What is, or what is not RP, is IMHO subjective. The general  modern tendency, I  believe, is to  consider all  standard English non regional  accents as RP. That  would probably  be correct.  It  is also  correct however, to  assert that  there are several  different versions of RP.  They  range from  the whining  nasal tones of the lazy  rich that  we are familiar with  from  the pre war generations of the 20th century, and also  typified by  the accents of the wartime RAF pilots and Army  officers unwittingly  caricatured in  movies of, and about  the times,  to  the unaffected and clearly  pronounced language of most  of today's reasonably  educated school kids. The war and the rest  of the 20th  century  had a great  levelling  effect  on  the British 'caste' system and the RP that  is spoken  by the generations of my  children and my  grand-children is to my  ears at  least, devoid of anything, including  any 'posh' tones. Like our Malvern water, it  contains absolutely  nothing! This is exemplified by  today's BBC news anchors and presenters such as Stephen Sackur, Tim Sebastian, Nik Gowing, George Alagiah, Trevor McDonald, Peter Dobbie, Jonathan Charles, Mishal Husain, and Mike Embley, who  represent  the accents of most  of the BBC news staff, leaving  us with  the question: Which BBC presenters do  not  speak  RP? This busts the myth that  the BBC introduced people with broad regional accents in an attempt  to  tone down its 'posh-speaker' image. Strong  regional  accents are hardly  heard on  English  TV, and even the the dialects used on  the traditional  soaps (Eastenders & Coronation St)  have become very  much  diluted when compared with  the speech  used in the days of Ena Sharples and Martha Longhurst. One of the best  examples of parody  of British  English  was throughout  the entire Monty Pyhron - already  over 40 years ago.  --Kudpung (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wellingborough
Hi Kudpung, Thanks for your note. Progress seems to have stalled completely since your and J3Mrs' recent edits. However, as you stated, it is quite close to being a GA and I think I can fix most of the problems myself (in some cases I suggested a way of fixing them in the /GA1 page). I will try and fix things and close the review (as a pass) before the end of the weekend, otherwise the nomination will just sit there stalled. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was just  a generic message to  all  contributors in  an  attempt to  get  them  to  rally  round. The major editor and nominator  has not  been responding lately  and is probably  busy  in  real  life.It would be great if you  could make the required minor fixes as I  can't  see what else I  can  do, and I  need to  check  over four articles I'm  going  to  nominate this week for GA review from  aproject  I  manage. Do take a look  if you  are interested,  the articles are quite short but  very  clean: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire/Archive 1. The school  one has already  been peer reviewed. Thanks again  for all  your help.--Kudpung (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got another reviews underway, but I could probably fit a short one in Monday/Tuesday, etc. Pyrotec (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wellingborough
The article Wellingborough you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wellingborough for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well its officially passed, thanks for all the help with this article, now lets see what else can make it. I also apologize for the lack of input over the last weeks, I been rather busy.

Likelife (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing
Hello Kudpung and congratulations on getting Wellingborough to GA status. I haven't done any reviewing and rarely comment on anything. I just like writing really. I noticed Wellingborough in the GAN list when one of mine was there. I don't think I did much, just a bit of cosmetic shuffling, the hard bit is finding the content and referencing it. I would be hopeless as a reviewer but best of luck, though I'm sure you won't need it.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well none in the queue at the mo thank goodness, I can't bear the tension! Too much like getting homework marked. If you look on my User page they're in significant contributions. I'm working with others on Horwich and Rivington in my butterfly way, leaving the hard bits until last!--J3Mrs (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If I get  time I'll  dip  in.--Kudpung (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)