User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jun 2011

Here you go

 * Wow! Thank you - I  am humbled. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:ABG1997
Thanks for the notification of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ABG1997. I had been considering doing the same myself, but not yet got round to it. I have now looked further, and, as you will see at the MfD page, found that this editor has used several accounts to keep creating this material in several paces. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm... trying to  use some of his 'magic' ;)  I'll  look  into  it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: Judging by  its edit history in  general,  perhaps this Template:Famous Magicians should be full protected.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Certainly a significant proportion of recent editing has consisted of "add non-notable entry/revert" cycles. My own feeling, however, is that the edits are not disruptive enough to justify full-protection, and even semi-protection is borderline. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Africa.com
Thanks for the note. I've withdrawn the proposal; the article may well be viable (or not), but I'll leave that to others. Too much brain fug. Haploidavey (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

New Page added - might be taken off
hi, just added a new page Met Film School and got a messgae, it might be taken off/deleted. can you please advice how can the page be saved? much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpmind (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please see the maintenance tags on the article, follow all the blue links in  them, and try  to  address the issues. It  mainly  concerns the requirement  for reliable  third party  sources that  assert notability for schools and organisations. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks!! jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 04:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yasmin lamadrid
How was random text (over half the article) not a G1? -- The Σ talkcontribs 06:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It featured a person's name and perfect coherent, and possibly libelous sentence about  the person. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Ser
Hi. I did extensive copyedits on this article and toned it down. Would you mind giving it a once over to see if there is anything I've missed? I'd like to send it to DYK. Thanks.--v/r - TP 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a brief look at this. You've obviously put a lot of hard work into it. Although it does not strictly contravene any Wikipedia policies and principles, it still reads a tad promotional or like a magazine piece. The lead, for example does not follow WP:LEAD recommendations. I'm sure that if I were to have time to check out all the references, I would find a lot that are not valid WP:RS, or that they simply support some of the unnecessary trivia. At this stage, however, none of this matters too much, unless you would want to nominate it for GE. In which case it would come under very close scrutiny. Keep up the good work and Happy editing! What's your next article going to be? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I actually don't do much content creation. I am an aspiring writer, actually, but I am horrible at English.  I tend to make start-class articles when something interesting pops up but I generally do NPP.  I took on this article because you challenged me to do it and the author is a brand new editor who put substantial work into it.  I'll see if I can address the lead issues.  Thanks for taking a peek at it.--v/r - TP 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights
Hey Kudpung, can you remove my  flag, as I am currently not using it? Thanks. — mc10 ( t / c ) 23:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be quite happy  to  do  that, but  there's no harm in  having  it  whether you  are using  it  or not. It  actually  helps us more than it  it  helps you, even just  for statistical purposes as a trusted user. Please confirm before I  go  ahead. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'd still like to have it removed. Cheers, — mc10 ( t / c ) 00:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As you  wish. No  problem. If ever you  want  it back, just  let me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Cease and desist
What was your excuse for editing the page? You sir, are being uncivil in violation of the wiki community standards. Any further edits in contravention of my request will be reverted as deliberate vandalism. Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Esther Community Enterprise
Thank-you for your guidelines concerning the use of having a wiki page. However, ECE has been recently awarded with the Queens award for Voluntary Service for addressing a global concern regarding food waste. I am sure you would agree that this is a subject that affects everyone, and should be highlighted.

Kindest regards

June Ross-Wildman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prov3 1 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Unfortunately it's been deleted because the written instructions about copyright were not followed. See WP:COPYVio. There's nothing I can do about it I'm afraid. Please follow all the blue links in all the messages on your talk page and consider starting a new article in your userspace. If it is not a blatant copyright infringement and also meets our criteria for organisations at WP:ORG and is correctly sourced according to our rules at WP:RS, I'll review it again and publish it to article space for you. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 4 June

2011 (UTC)


 * Hi I have sent a request via my website address to give permission of copyright on my website. it was sent from info@esthercommunityenterprise.co.uk .  i would still like to use wiki to address this, therefore please let me know if you have recieved my email.


 * Kindest regards
 * june


 * Hi. We have several hundred volunteers working here so I won't get to know personally if you have granted our copyright department permission to use your material. You will need to quote me any response you get from them. However, the WP:COPYVIO is only one of several issues that need to be addressed. The Wikipedia is indeed 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', but thee are several strict policies that have to be observed. One is that you may not be writing an article about yourself or a subject you are closely connected to, see WP:COI. I do really suggest that you read all the instructions that have been posted to your talk page, it'll take a while, but I think you'll find it's worth it. If you would first like a brief 5 minute summary of our deletion policy, do read this: User:Kudpung/Article deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 02:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Let me know when you  are ready  for a second run. As  you  can see from  28Bytes RfA, a second attempt often attracts overwhelming  support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

CSD question
Hello, Kudpung, I have a question about a CSD tag. What should this page be tagged as? — mc10 ( t / c ) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker). A10, but probably be best just to redirect it to Americans in the United Kingdom. 28bytes (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cecilia Grace
hello and thankx for the message on my wall. i feel that your the nicest person here. everyone else just argues with me and tells me that i don’t know what i’m talking about. So i’m realy hopful that you could help me here. and get cecilia graces wiki article back up. pls could you help me find sources to appease those people ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Well unfortunately I'm also one of 'those people' that you need to appease ;) and even worse I'm afraid, I'm an administrator, which means I had a good look at the deleted article already. The problem is, as I said before, that Cecilia isn't ready for an article yet unless sources can be found that prove she's important enough. I know that she's important for you, so I had a good search for the right kind of sources and I just couldn't find any. It might take quite while until Cecilia has hit the national charts and been mentioned in Billboard and performed on a lot of TV and done a concert tour, so as I said before, I think it would be a great idea while we're waiting for something like that to happen, if you think of something easier to write an article about, or even help us out by correcting the mistakes in other articles. BTW: do have a read of this page: WP:TPG, always look at the top of talk pages for any instructions, and remember to sign your posts. Follow all those blue links on your talk page, and as always, if ever you need help, you know where to find me. Do remember though, I live a long way away in another time zone, and chances are I may be asleep. Take care. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WOW YOUR UP AT 1:00 AM! you must be realy tired right


 * oh and if your "an administrator" that can look at the wiki article, then doesn’t that mean cecilia’s article is still there!? kudpung, both cecilia and i want her to have a wiki article. when she found out it got deleted, we comforted each other- we both were crying. she thought that people thought her singing sucked and that she wasn’t important enough. she felt realy degraded, but if the article is still there then you must be able to bring it back. ill do anything to bring it upto wiki standard.


 * i just want to say thank you so much. your realy nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that the article can be restored unless you provide those references. Nobody here has got anything against Ccilia's music - we don't even know her. And that's just the problem, outside of her own neighbourhood, nor does anyone else. And that's why there are no reliable sources for her yet. (See WP:BAND). Take my advice, write something else in the meantime or help correct and expand some other articles. And PLEASE read WP:TPG and all the other instructions before you do anything else. Best, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

so theres no hope... well then i might try to write about some of my other artist friends then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Art Directors Club Deleted?
Hey Kudpung?

is there a reason why you deleted the Art Directors Club? it is the foremost creative communication club in the world. Started in 1920, and continues to influence the careers of many creative people around the world. http://adcglobal.org many artists represented on the the site cite the influence of the organization.

-thank you the art directors club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.22.182 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. It was procedurally deleted because it  was brought  to  my  attention  by  a Proposal for Deletion as having been  the encyclopedia for five years without   a single reference that  asserts its importance. After the author(s) was/were notified there was no  reaction and after the statutory  seven days the page was automatically  deleted. It  may  be possible to  to  have this article restored, but  only  on  the strict understanding  that  verifiable, reliable third party  sources about  the organisation can be found that  assert the club's notability. If you, or another person  has found references, I  will  restore the page to  your (or another person's) user page where it can be completed with the required referenced sources before being published again as a live page. There is no doubt  whatsoever that  the orgqnisation is notable, but  unfortunately  no  exceptions to  our rules can be made. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Demme redirect
Redirect I didn't create a misnamed article&mdash;I created a redirect for what is a reasonable misspelling of his name. If someone searches for "Johnathan Demme", he will now be redirected to the proper article: Jonathan Demme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for now creating  the right  kind of redirect. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

regarding your comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Recycling_and_the_need_for_Bio-polymers_in_India
Dear Kudpung,

This is regarding your comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Recycling_and_the_need_for_Bio-polymers_in_India. We are friends of Almitra Patel trying to get much needed information from her website to a wider audience. There is nothing in these articles about her, but there is heaps of information critical to successful solid waste management in India. You will find lots on Almitra Patel's work if you google her name. She is a bit technologically challenged (aren't we all ?), is very much on mail but cant currently handle putting her stuff on wikipedia so we are helping her.

Your comment about deletion may be valid in the complex set of norms wikipedia has had to develop to be open yet authentic to the real world. But I for one did not really get the point you were making. Please help me and Devayani, the person actually putting the edits in, understand your objection. you can mail me at but of course we will be visiting these pages also. Regards, Anjana Mehta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.161.153 (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understand your wish to see this this article accepted by Wikipedia. However, the matter is not in my hands. A deletion debate has started at Articles for deletion/Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. Following the nominator's statement although I am the first editor to offer an opinion on it, many more comments from other editors will follow. The process will continue for a full seven days, after which an uninvolved administrator will summarize the community's decision. During this time, you are however welcome to continue to edit the article and provide the references that another administrator has requested. Please note that only the creator is permitted to edit the Wikipedia in her name - if you and anyone else wish to improve the article, you must either contribute without logging in, or create your own accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect this one will also be problematic Solid waste policy in India. Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! It's always a shame when people add new content with  the best  of intentions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung, I am the ghost writer for the above mentioned article that has been nominated for deletion. Seems the other article I contributed on Solid Waste policy in India is also under the scanner. In a way, I am glad to run into this hiccup, it shows me just what a thorough system is in place to assess and monitor the content. If the article in anyway does not meet the wikipedia standards of publishing, I will be happy to make amends. I am still familiarising myself with the language/script and may have made a good many errors in my first attempts. If you could point out more in detail exactly what went wrong, how I can tweak it to better meet the standards and how best this content can find its way onto Wiki, we would do our best to proceed accordingly. Yes, new content with good intentions must be hardest to administrate. Thank you for your comments and opinions...I value your time! Patel almitra (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani, under the guise of Almitra Patel


 * Hi. The details of what  went  wrong  are being  discussed at  the deletion debate at  Articles for deletion/Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. As I  said before, this is now out  of my  hands because decisions like these are made by  the Wikipedia community. There's nothing  much  you  can do  now other than wait until  the debate is closed by  an administrator who  is not  involved in  the discussion. You  could of course try  to  find sources for the information  in  your papers, but  other issues are those of copyright (do  you  own  the copyright  personally, or is it  now owned by  the journal  that  published your paper?), and the fact  that  your information  may  now be out of date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, I shall follow the thread at the deletion debates. Yes, the author owns the copyright personally, and has commissioned me to transfer it onto Wikipedia under her name. Being a practical issue, with a great deal of hands-on procedures, I do not think the material would be outdated. They are still in effect across India, and successful. We are just trying to bring it to the attention of a wider audience. I shall ask the author to compose a mail regarding the copyrights as soon as possible. Thank you! Patel almitra (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani

Orphaned non-free image File:WorcesterCoatArms.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WorcesterCoatArms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
My talk page is getting crowded, so I thought I would reply here and offer my thanks for the congratulations. I deeply appreciate the support you've offered me throughout all this, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on RfA reform and elsewhere! Best, 28bytes (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. When you get  home from  work and out of your nice office uniform, you'll  need to  don your oldest set of fatigues for this job! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for editing statistics about article creation by non-autoconfirmed editors
I'm more an analyst than a generator of statistics. So while I can't help actually create the data you want, I do have a couple of suggestions and questions for you to consider:


 * There is a "Proposals" section on the WikiProject Editing page; I think you'd be better off posting your request there than on the talk page, though having notified everyone, you're likely to get attention one way or another.
 * You should mention that the proposal has not been implemented yet, so that data collection should continue through June 30th. That raises the related question of whether you'll be ready to roll out the new process on July 1st. (Otherwise, you'll have to adjust the second six month period accordingly.)
 * You probably should state that you want the data to be broken out in a month-to-month format. While in theory that's not necessary, it would be helpful to spot data generation problems, I believe, and it shouldn't be much more difficult than generating single (total) numbers for all six months.
 * Your 8 questions include a bit of duplication: 1 = 2 + 3. (If you agree, you might drop question 3.) You also might want to clarify that the editors were not auto-confirmed at the time they created their article, though of course they could become autoconfirmed at a later point.
 * Question 5 has some ambiguity - what are "constructive edits"? It would be easier to answer if it were something like "have made more than 1 mainspace edit since their article was deleted".
 * For question 6, are you interested in blocks of any length, or just indefinite blocks? (Whichever should be explicitly stated.)
 * You don't ask about articles created by autoconfirmed users.  If you have that count (or the total count of created articles) from somewhere else, that's good; otherwise, I think you'll lack perspective on how many new articles get added by non-autoconfirmed editors versus autoconfirmed editors.
 * The Articles Wizard can be used by any editor; if you're going to get a total count of articles created that way, you probably should also get get a breakdown of autoconfirmed versus non-autoconfirmed editors using that tool.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks enormously for your input here. You  have certainly  raised some points that  we have omitted or not  provided enough  detail  on. The figure for the AFC and Wizard are not  essential -  this was a result  of questions posed in  the main  RfC and is facultative; neither the trial  nor the new rule itself depends upon  their use, it  would however be interesting  to  see if there is an increase in  their use during  the trial as there have been suggestions to  make them  more user friendly. The proposal  has not  been implemented yet  and is still  at  draft  stage,  but  the trial must  start  soon and must  not  turn into  a re-dabate of the consensus that  was reached. These stats do  not  strictly  need to  be available before the trial starts, but  there are certainly  going  to  be questions during  the discussion  to  fix the parameters and criteria for the trial  so  it's best  to  get  these stats as soon  as possible. You  can see the full  draft  here, and we would appreciate your further analysis of it,  and feel  free to  make any  edits to  it  directly. Further brief background information  is here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing more to add, but I've revised my text, above, to be a bit more actionable. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 19:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look
Ben Ripley Draft

Four reliable sources that support his business with Duncan Jones and credit for Source Code. I'm quite certain the article meets the minimum requirements for notability and would obviously be classified as a "stub" article. Let me know what you think. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. To be quite honest, these sources are not reliable (see WP:V) - you  took  your information  from  them,  but  we don't  know where they  got their information and if it  was audited.  The NYT page is only  a listing. There must  be a third party  article in  some print  media dedicated to  him somewhere, or a perhaps a TV interview. Keep  looking  and if you  can find one I'll  move it  to  main space as a stub for you. Rome wasn't  built in  a day. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What sources are not reliable? Hollywood reporter, wired, empire - all mainstream hollywood publications. Take some time to read through the sources and let me know what content specifically requires further verification. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hollywood Reporter: carries only a fleeting  mention 'Written by Ben Ripley, Source Code stars Jake Gyllenhaal ...' and is not  about  Ben Ripley. It  simply  confirms that  he wrote the movie.
 * Wired: the site section is a blog. It  is not  about  Ben Ripley.,  It  is about  the movie. It  simply  confirms that  he wrote the movie and made some comments about  it.
 * Empire: is again about  a movie that  will  be made. It  simply  confirms that  he wrote the movie and made some comments about  it.
 * None of these are dedicated articles about Ben Ripley  the person, therefore for Wikipedia purposes,  in  my  opinion, notability  is not  asserted. You  are welcome to  obtain  a second opinion  from  the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.
 * --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Do the sources support the content in the article? Yes they do. Ripley authored Source Code, check. Ripley authored a series of other T.V and mainstream movies, check. What else needs to be said? Ripley has received significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV, and it would be hard to argue Ripley does not meet the minimum threshold for notability. The sources are reliable (this isn't being disputed), so why would I need to go to an RS board? He wrote Source Code. The film made over 100 million at the box office. Let me know, thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An article "dedicated about Ben Ripley the person" - here. Imagine what can be found if the article was on the main space. What other problems are there, specifically? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail (bold type is mine), so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * Include the ref at WGA but be sure to  use a cite template (use the button  on  your editing  toolbar) and include all  the relevant  data. If you  are prepared to accept that the article may  be tagged by  patrollers, I'll  move it  for you, but  please clean up  the other naked URLs per WP:CITE first, and include the   retrieved dates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All right done. Added more background. It would be helpful if/when this is moved to userspace so other editors can work on it because I don't have a huge amount of time to continue this. Are we good to go now? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From my  experience, I  don't  personally  think  it  will  attract  much  attention  from  other editors, at  least  not  the regulars - many  share my  opinion that  a creator should do  most of the work  to  ensure that  an article is 100% within the rules. I'll  move it for you when you  have cleaned up  the citation URLs as I  explained, but  be sure to  watch  it  in  case it  gets tagged. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did use the cite profile for some sources, but it is not mandatory. I feel you are putting unnecessary road blocks here. The article as it stands easily meets the thresholds for notability and has more than enough sources right now. Formatting is another issue. Burden says nothing about the creator. I am just an editor, I do not own the article. I'm saying when this is moved to wikipedia mainspace other editors will be allowed to expand and polish whatever they want. I'm really tired so can you please move it unless you see something blatantly objectionable? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, your more than 'just an editor' you  call  yourself a 'Wikifan' -  everyone who  knows the MOS and the policies as well  as you  do  has a moral  responsibility  to make clean articles. I'm  helping  you  here, and I  don't  have any  obligations to  either.  I'm  not  making  road blocks- you  know how to  do  this this with  the citations and it  will  only  take you  five minutes, there is absolutely  no  hurry, and if it's night  time where you  are, you  can finish  it  tomorrow. It  will  still  be in  your user space. It  will  get  you  a lot  of kudos for writing  clean stubs, that  are not  littered with  'cleanup' templates.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: Your issue is purely about formatting citations? this has nothing to do with notability. There is no reason to keep the article in my userspace. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. You can do  the rest yourself tomorrow (and I'm  sure you  will) such  as adding  cats and a stub template and cleaning  up  the ref section,  instead of leaving  it  for the newbs who  do  WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tomorrow I would like to move the article to Ben Ripley. I don't think there is a need to include his occupation with the name because there are no other Ben Ripley's on wikipedia. I tried doing it just now but it said the page is protected. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The previous article under that name was a particularly  nasty piece of vandalism and nothing  to  do  with  the real  Ben. If  you  choose that  page name again  you  have the deletions listed in  the page deletion log and if anyone sees them, they  may  wonder what  you've been up  to. Up  to  you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a tainted deletion is a good rationale for bypassing COMMONNAME. There aren't any other Ben Ripleys so there's no need for the occupational disambiguation. If anyone wonders what Wikifan's been up to, it's not particularly difficult to show that he had nothing to do with the vandal versions. It's possible that in my un-tea-ed state that I've either completely misunderstood you or that the preceeding is gibberish. In that case, disregard. --Danger (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're probably right Danger. I  was probably  being over precautious.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
(I'm not sure if you have my talk page on your watchlist, so I've done the courtesy of a talkback.) —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins and blocks
What's your view on this? In an RfA everyone wants the candidate to have a clean block log, so what about this? Being blocked during an RfA spells disaster, but after you get the tools it's perfectly acceptable? -- The Σ talkcontribs 03:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in  my own RfA, I  usually  steer clear of contentious issues. This is because I do  not  find  it personally  interesting  to  untangle massively  complex possible breaches of policy or use of admin  tools. The areas I work in are New users, NPP, BLP, and RfA policies.I have never understood  why  edit warring, although  highly  undesirable, is an infraction  that  is met  with  the most  rapid and severe interventions. From an admin's standpoint, it can be difficult  to  know what  to  do. Take these two metaphors:


 * Motorcycle traffic cop: This is a 40 mph zone Sir. You were doing  65. That's a £80 on-the-spot fine please.
 * Motorist: But Officer, it's dead of night, there's not  any  other traffic in  sight, it's a ten-lane highway and it's well  lit.
 * Motorcycle traffic cop: Yes, Sir, and if I  was fortunate enough to  afford a car like yours, I  would probably  be going  too fast  my self, but  the law's the law, Sir, £80 please.
 * Motorist: I'm sorry Officer, I know this is a 40 mph zone and I know I  was doing  over 60, but  it's dead of night, there's not  any  other traffic in  sight, it's a ten-lane highway and it's well  lit.
 * Motorcycle traffic cop: No worries Sir. I'm  just  stopping  you  to  tell  there's been a bad accident  two  miles down the road.  Nice car  you  have Sir. I  would probably  be going  too fast  myself if I  had one like it. Have a safe journey. Good night.
 * Motorcycle traffic cop: No worries Sir. I'm  just  stopping  you  to  tell  there's been a bad accident  two  miles down the road.  Nice car  you  have Sir. I  would probably  be going  too fast  myself if I  had one like it. Have a safe journey. Good night.

I think it's generally accepted to break a 3rr if it is to combat vandalism, however, I wouldn't like to put it to the test and get myself blocked. As an admin (and indeed any editor), the best approach would probably be to withdraw from the edit war, report it to a noticeboard, and let other uninvolved admins sort it out. With exception  of gross and blatant misuse of tools that would lead to an arbcom decision to desysop, there should really be no need for admins to block each other without seeking a solution through discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete and re-create
Hello Kudpung. I have noticed something rather odd. I can see a deletion log that tells me that on 14 June at 01:39 you speedy deleted an article called Debiganj Riverview Girl's High School. (As far as I recall, this was an article created by User:Desibau.)  Four hours later, Desibau appears to have created a new article with the same title and the same inadequate amount of information - see Debiganj Riverview Girl's High School. I assume such is not within the rules of Wikipedia. Dolphin ( t ) 03:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. If  you  look  at  the article's log (link in  the top  left  hand corner of the history  page), you'll  see that  I  deleted the article as ‎ A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Debiganj Girls' High School. You  are right,  the article should not  be recreated with  out discussing  with  the deleting  admin, and Debiganj Riverview Girl's High School can be deleted again  under the same CSD A10. If there is a dispute over the correct  page name, it  should be discussed on  the article talk  page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your information.  Dolphin  ( t ) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it turns out that  a consensus is reached on  the talk  page of Debiganj Girls' High School, that Debiganj Riverview Girl's High School is the preferred name, then the article can be moved to  that  name. If however that deleted article is protected against recreation, then an admin  will  have to  do  it  for you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

reply
I replied on my talk page. Cheers! --ragesoss (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ping.--ragesoss (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation request
Hi! Found you in the translators list and was wondering if you could help me place an English to French translation request for Korkoro to make its content usable in the French version. Thanks. morelM William 07:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking, but  I  already  have a backlog  of items to  translate from  French to  English  for the enWiki. You  could try  looking  for someone  on the French Wiki at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Traduction/*/Lang/en for English  to  French. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I already contacted a translator there and placed the request. morelM William 07:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Which recent edit?
Hello Kudpung, you added this message to my talk page. To which edit were you referring - I can't find the revert? Twopenneth (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not  sure -  I can't  find it in  the histories  now either. I had a lot of windows and tabs open  yesterday because of the poor connection, and then FireFox went  and crashed and I  lost  the cache. It  could well  have been a rare  error on  my  part and the message might  have been meant  for someone else. If  it  was, please ignore it  and accept  my  apologies. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've removed it then. Thanks for the clear reply.  Twopenneth (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

signpost?
Having a hard time finding the article you referto?TCO (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Golly, you'll have to go back  a while, around August  last  year? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * here it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin_stats --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Good, basically.  I think we have enough moderators.  With automation and spreading of vandal fighting, so much admin stuff is not neededed.  Wish more and more of the need for them would go away.TCO (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, with all the traditional encyclopedic articles mostly  already  written, and with  the exponential  growth  of connectivity  throughout  the entire English  speaking  world,  80% of the 1,000 or so  new articles that  arrive each  day  have to  be deleted. And deletion  is actually only a small part of the work  admins do. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * TCO, you must have missed the bit tonight (reported on AN/I) where a vandal modified a high-use template to cover hundreds of pages in images of feces and swastikas. We need clueful people willing to tackle that nonsense; all the brilliant prose in the world is of no use to anyone if it's literally buried in shit. 28bytes (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * TCO, with  nearly 10,000 edits and participation  in  26 RfA (mostly  opposed, but apparently rightly  so),  what's stopping  you  from  running  for adminship  yourself ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a bunch of work, plus I don't really get the "want to be a moderator" thing. I have more the "want to troll" thing.  All that said, Wiki actually has something more constructive than all the other forums, since there are articles being created that are sometimes (say at GA+) very helpful.TCO (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nota bene: Consensus appears to be that admins can't moderate. (See Civility.) So using the term "moderator" is inaccurate. --Danger (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, stop doing that, Kudpung. Keep your terms straight.  Don't want to have to explain ban-block to you.  aTCO (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now blocked TCO for impersonating a badger. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean banned right? That's what the mods call it on the other forums I go to.  ;)TCO (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See: User:Kudpung/Wikipedia is not a forum. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your help & links much appreciated
Just wanted to say thank you for going out of your way to assist. Especially appreciated your thoughtfully providing links. I will proceed cautiouly and with respect. Thank you, and good evening.

CentralAbe (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Central Abe in regard to the Robina Suwol Bio


 * You're welcome. If at any  time you  would like further help  or advice, please don't  hesitate to  ask  me directly  here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Untitled, unsigned new post
wtf dude why did you delete my page. i was about to work on it and you deleted it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_cull — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiveturkeyyy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the clear instructions at the top of this talk page. Read also how to format and sign your posts and to be kind enough to include a measure of civility in them. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 8:14 pm, Today (UTC+7)

Rockman Chaos
Please, restore deleted Rockman Chaos page, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง.The source of this article has detected - http://info.sonicretro.org/Rockman_Chaos Look, read and restore!

Loves, Soniccis


 * Hi. Please read the clear instructions at the top  of this talk  page. Read also  how to format and sign your posts, and be careful  not  to  delete the messages from  other editors.
 * I have reviewed the source you  cited and unfortunately  I find this not  to  be sufficient  to  assert notability per WP:RS. The article also  needs a complete rewrite to  remove you  own  personal  comments, addressing  the reader as 'you', and removing  the 'How to' instructions. I  suggest  you  rewrite the article in  your user space, and ask  me to  review it  when you  think  it is ready  for moving  to  main  space. You  can click  this red link  to  get  started: User:Soniccis/Rockman Chaos (draft). Regards,  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง!Please, if you going to "repair" Soniccis's pages - DO NOT DELETE THAT PAGES!!!

Loves, Wikipedia Site Administration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniccis (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page archiving dispute
As an admin with an interest in education related articles, can I ask you to take a look at Talk:New_College_of_the_Humanities? We have an editor who is exhibiting classic WP:OWN behaviour. One thing that needs sorting is consensus on auto-archiving the talk page. The original user set it to 7 days with no discussion. There are those of us who think it shouldn't be turned on yet but the user presses ahead and does it anyway despite Miszabot stating clearly that it should only be turned on where consensus exists. Perhaps you could take a look and add your two cents or (should you feel it is necessary) set people (on either side of the argument) straight? Thanks. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer not to  get  involved because there may  be users in  that  discussion  with  whom  I might  have had disagreements in  the past  about  unilateral  handling  of situations during  debates and I  don't  want  it to  look  as if I  were taking  sides.. It's a fairly  lively  page and there could well  be a cause for auto  archiving, but avoid making  unilateral  decisions yourself or getting  involved in  an edit  war. Clearly  if the bot  requires a consensus, this could be established by  a simple straw poll  on  the talk  page thus:


 * Users who want  7 days:
 * User:John Doe


 * Users who want 14 days:
 * User:Fred Bloggs


 * Users who want  3 weeks :
 * User:John Doe


 * Users who want  4  weeks:
 * User:Jane Doe
 * User:Hans Dampf


 * If there is no clear choice among the above suggestions (or longer), take the mean average of what  they wanted rounded up  or down  to  the nearest 7 days, and suggest  they  agree on  that. You  can copy  and paste the above example on  the talk  page if you  wish (less the imaginary !voters). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Seems like a reasonable idea. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 17:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Errors In Message Delivery
Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (Task force WP:RFA2011 update). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 08:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
 * lzarian16 - User does not exist.

re: Request for stats
In reply to your Request for stats on my talkpage I am sorry to say that I cannot provide any of the information. I personally don't create statistics, I merely create graphs from data provided by Erik Zachte's statistics (http://stats.wikimedia.org). HenkvD (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Don;t ever move my dramatics
kay? TCO (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. All registered users are free to !vote and comment  at  RfA. I  would have thought  that  from your recent  participation  at  WPRFA2011,  you  would be in  support of our goals to  reduce the drama. If you  disfavour the move I  have made, you  are welcome to  discuss it  through  formal  channels. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I SUPPORT reducing dramatics. Of others.  As it makes mine stand out in comparison.  Capisce Siamese Britisher?  ;)  TCO (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Carmen Reid (article proposed for deletion)
Hello Kudpung

You left a message on my talk page saying that the article I wrote, Carmen Reid, has been proposed for deletion. This is my first Wikipedia article, but I read the guidelines before writing it, and included two reliable sources so I don't understand why you did this. Have I missed something? Please can you explain what is going on and what should be done in order to prevent the article being deleted. Raziya88 (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kudpung

I noticed that the boxed text saying the article would be deleted instructed me to remove the box once the article had at least one reliable source. Unless I am misunderstanding something, the article already had two reliable sources, so I removed the box. If this is wrong, can you explain, because as far as I can see I've followed all the instructions. I still don't understand why the article was proposed for deletion in the first place. Raziya88 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Raziya. I can understand your  confusion, but  the short answer is that  your article isn't  referenced at  all. Actually  it's not  so  difficult; what  you  must  do  is read all  the blue links in  the welcoming  message I  wrote on  your talk  page and you'll  find all  your questions answered as if by  magic. But  before you  do  that, just  take  a look  a biography  I  wrote myself to  day. Yes, it's also  about  an author, a French one. Now that's what  your article needs to  look  like. We  need more than just  one line then a list  of books, and telling  the reader to  go  find more on  another web site. WE at  Wikipedia are the best  information! WE  are factual, and we don't  report  anything  that  was made up. Here, take a look: Dominique Mainard. And when you've read that go  to  this: User:Kudpung/Article deletion, because I  think  it's a bit  clearer than most  of our explanations. Then, when you've done all  that and if you  still need some help, just  come back here, but  do  check  what  time it  is  where I  live by  looking  at  the instruction  box at the top of this page - you  might  have to  wait  until  tomorrow for an answer! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand. You say my article isn't referenced, but it is.

I looked at the article you wrote on Dominique Mainard. You say "Now that's what your article needs to look like", but my article DOES look like your article!

Today I wanted to find out what books Carmen Reid had written, and when they were published. This is the sort of information I expected to find on Wikipedia, but I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia has no page on Carmen Reid. So I created an account and created the page myself. The article contains all the information I wanted to know. It tells you who Carmen Ried is, what books she has written, which books belong to which series, when they were published, where I got this information from, and a link to Carmen's website. This is more informative than not having an article at all, and I'm sure it will be helpful to some people, so to my mind it is worth doing.

You say the article should include extra information in order to avoid being deleted but you don't say what information!

You say that Wikipedia articles should be factual and not made up. My article is factual. Nothing in is is made up. I included sources for the information in the article.

I have read your essay about article deletion and I have read the links in the welcome message and as far as I can tell there is nothing about my article that is in contravention of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.

I may be a new user but I am not a fool. I realise that there are some people on the internet who think it's funny to annoy other people and waste their time. I don't understand how anyone can read the article I wrote, which includes a section detailing the sources I used, and say that it is made up and that it includes no references. To be clear - I am starting to suspect that you are a troll! If you're not a troll, then you're not making much sense to me!

If you genuinely believe that my article ought to be deleted then please could you READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE and explain SPECIFICALLY what you think is wrong with it before nominating it for deletion. Raziya88 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Me again. I thought I would give you a hand and kick start the article for you, but I came up against a big problem: Carmen just does not meet our rules for biographies. I can't  find any  sources that  show she's important  enough. None of her books appear to  have won  any  major prizes, and she does not  seem to  have been famous enough  to  have articles written about  her in  important  newspapers or magazines, or a documentary about her on  TV. She simply  fails to  meet our criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Still,  you've got  ten days to  find some reliable sources. Don't  forget  that to  prove she's written  all  those books, you  must  include the publisher's name and the ISBN. Good luck :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

REPOSTED AFTER KUDPUNG DELETED IT! Raziya88 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Well you have a point there. I wasn't aware of the specifics of Wikipedia's notability criteria. A quick google uncovered a long article about her books in the Times, and there are also three short interviews with her in Scottish newspapers that have been published online. I'm surprised you couldn't find these newspaper articles - it took me five minutes! Although it's somewhat subjective I wouldn't personally say that this makes her notable enough, according to those gudelines. So I accept that you have the right to delete the article on notability grounds. Raziya88 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have tried to  help  you, I've even placed the one required proper reference on  it  to  prevent  it  being  deleted immediately, but it appears I've wasted a lot  of my  time. You  cannot  possibly  have followed all  those links in  that  short  time, read the bio  I  wrote today, and noticed the changes I  made on  your  page,  otherwise you  would have learned what  is specifically  wrong  with  it. What's wrong  is that  there is nothing out  there to  prove that  Carmen is a special  author notable enough  for an article here per WP:AUTHOR - just having written a few books is not enough, and we don't allow people's own web sites as sources, or tell our readers to go and get the rest of the information at Amazon.  Did you  compare the way  I  formated the book  list in  italics,  with  dates and publishers, and book  prizes? Did you  se how I  cited the references? Please  read the instructions as I  suggested, and then this to  find out WP:SOURCE, WP:CITE, WP:MOS, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, and the next  step may  be WP:AfD where the community  will  decide if your article stays if you  can't  meet them. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I admitted above that Carmen Reid does not, in my opinion, meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and said that I have no objection to the article being deleted. What reason could you possibly have for deleting that post of mine? Presumably to make me look unreasonable. You also deleted the references I put on the page, substituting them for a reference to an article that is NOT about Carmen as an author, or about her books. Why would you do that? Presumably because you want to make my article look more poorly referenced than it actually was. As soon as you said that Carmen did not meet the specific notability criteria for authors (which I was previously unaware of) I researched this and agreed with you. I read most of the articles on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that you linked to BEFORE writing the article. Wikipedia does allow people's own websites as sources for biographical information about them. I saw nothing to say that Wikipedia cannot reference Amazon as a source of information about a book. Using "note-style" references is not mandatory for short articles - it is sufficient to state your sources. I would suggest that you read the policies and guidelines and pay attention to what they actually say - but I'm sure you don't care - you are just having fun baiting the newbie, right?

I don't care whether my article is deleted or not, and I'm sure that even if I were to try and improve it you would do your best to try and get it deleted - and succeed. I admit that the article fails on notability.

I had heard that Wikipedians could be hostile to new users, but I really didn't expect this sort of deliberate trolling. Raziya88 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You did take a look at the edit history of course and see the time I spent on it for you? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Stats
FYI - I'm making some progress on the stats, but it's fairly slow going. There are hundreds of thousands of articles that are created over a 6-month period, so certain parts of the analysis take several hours to complete. It also doesn't help that I'm learning SQL on the fly while I do this... ;) Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about it.  Should have something concrete in a few days.  I'll keep you updated.  &mdash;SW&mdash; gab 21:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, keep in mind that these stats needn't delay the start of the trial. The data is always there and can be analyzed at any time, before or after the start of the trial.  &mdash;SW&mdash; yak 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? That's what  'I' said ;)  BTW, I didn't  make up  the list  of starts we require -  you  can  thank  Protonk  for that. I personally  think a month's worth  would do it, but  I'm  looking  for a good reason  to  run the trial  for as long  as possible,  we don't  wanat  another fisco like pending  changes. I  think  the resistance we are getting  from  the WMF to  help  with  the sts is because thy  are all m busy  with  the outreach  programme that  kind of clashes with  our new rule. Getting  info  on  the deleted pages will not  be so  easy, though  I  would not  have thought  it  would be necessary  to  read the pages just  to know how many  were deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Figuring out how many were deleted isn't hard, the part where it gets complicated is figuring out whether the editor who created the article was autoconfirmed at the time, whether they continued editing, whether they got blocked, etc. I'm on the right track though and getting close to getting some actual stats.  Right now I'm close to having a daily list of every article that was created in from January 1 through May 31, with the user who created it and whether the article has been deleted.  Now I just need to test each one for the editor's autoconfirmed status, etc., and then compile stats from that info.  Since I've kept all the information separated by day, I should be able to create graphs which show how the different stats have evolved over time.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confess 18:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work SW. have you had a look at  Blade's talk  page. We  need to  decide what  to  do  about  the existing  discussion  that's in  a blocked admin's user space: a) Move it and use it, adding   my proposal  to  the bottom of it. or b) Start a new one in  Wikipedia:xxxxx space; or c) creating  a page for it  as a sub  page of the RfC that  got  the consensus. AFAICS,all  these are possible, but  I  don't  really  want  to  ruffle any  feathers, especially  those of Protonk who  can be derogatory at  times. What  do  you  think? We  need to  let people know about  it  without  infringing  WP:CANVASS, but  it must  not  be allowed to  become a platform  for those who  opposed the original RfC -  and unfortunately, that  is already  happening. I  think  it's fair to  assume that  almost every  deleted new article is the product of an new, non autoconfirmed user, but  of course like we need sources for everything  around here, we need the stats to  prove it. TYose who  get  blocked do  so  because they won't  read the rules; persistently  recreate the deleted article, or start  edit  wars. That's why  we need to  know also  how many  new editors get  blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started a preliminary stats page at User:Snottywong/Article creation stats. I've found some evidence that there might be some inaccuracies in the statistics, so I haven't posted them all yet (and even the ones that I have posted may not be 100% accurate).  I'm going to do some double-checking to make sure things are accurate, and then I'll post the rest of the stats.  For now, please don't distribute these stats widely or rely on them for anything important, because they may change.  &mdash;SW&mdash; chat 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done. I wonder what that huge spike is. Were there really  9,000 articles posted in one day? We don't need to  publish  these stats with the  trial RfC, but we can state our rational with  sentences such as:
 * From Jan through June 2001 xx;x% of articles created by autoconfirmed users were deleted.
 * From Jan through June 2001 xx.x% of articles created by non autoconfirmed users were deleted.
 * From Jan through June 2001 xx.xx of all articles created were deleted.
 * From Jan through June 2001 xx.xx of non autoconfirmed new users were blocked.
 * etc, and so on for all  the other stats. In  fact as previously  mentioned, in  fact in the debate for the trial, which  is strictly  only  on  its duration,  we don't  even need to  mention stats, remember, the consensus is already  for the change in  the creation  rule -  we can mention  the stats as an when someone asks for them. We  don't  want  the whole thing turned in  to  an  endless discussion  on  the stats, and that's what  will  happen when the detractors start  chiming in - need to address this psychologically based on  RfC experience in  general. We  also  need a clear consensus among  ourselves now to either move that  discussion  from  the user's user space,  or start  a completely  new one based on  my  draft. I  think we have the  consensus, but it's spread among  your, Blade's and my  talk pages. This needs to  be done very  soon.  How long do you need to address the other stats we we need, and what about the ones you thought you would need admin access for? I'm  going  to  be out of town for the next  few days with  limited Internet (leaving  in  2 hours). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just got a note on my talkpage; the preliminaries look good, and seem to bolster our position here. However, I also want to echo the above; we can't get too bogged down now in talking about statistics.  The ultimate goal is to get this change implemented as quickly as possible, and to go from there.  These will be good further down the road, though, when we make the case for keeping this in place. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you comment  on  what you  think  we should about  placing  the proposal in  the right  place,  and which  draft  it should contain? Thanks.
 * The revised draft in your sandbox is what I'd like to go with. As for the placement; if it was closer to the end of the RfC, I'd definitely say that creating it as a subpage there would be the best option.  We could still do that, but I doubt it'd get the necessary attention; the alternative is to 1. create it in someone's userspace or 2. create it as another subpage of WP:VPR and transclude it onto the main page.  2 will probably get a lot of attention, but that carries with it the risk of turning into a thousand-headed hydra (to crib from Beeblebrox), so a userspace draft (of a non-blocked user) would be best.  Snottywong's would seem to make the most sense, since he has all the stats in his userspace already and that's as central a location as any, but I offer up my own userspace if necessary.  I'm still open to suggestions, though; I'm not completely deadset on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never been too sure about  the 'legality' of user space vs project space. That's why  I  moved WP:RFA12011 out of my  sub  pages as quickly  as possible. Let's not  forget either that  the blocked user unilaterally move-deleted the very  first  draft  of this from  my  user space to  their own, just  to  abandon  Wikipedia afterwards. I  don't  want  to  ruffle any  feathers because there a re some comments that  were added to  that  draft and I'  not  sure if they  are still  to  be used or not.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving the draft in Rd232's userspace into a subpage of the original RfC, putting your revised proposal there, and putting something on WP:CENT and/or a note on all the village pump pages might work, although that also runs the risk of turning into a free-for-all. But that's the best I can think of, for now The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should be able to get the rest of the stats updated tomorrow. This will include any accuracy updates to the current stats, as well as more stats on how many non-autoconfirmed users created new articles, how many of them made no other edits after their articles were deleted, and how many eventually became autoconfirmed after their article was deleted.  I may not be able to get stats about blocked users done by tomorrow, unless I can figure out why my code to get those stats is so slow. It turns out I don't need admin access to compile any of these stats.  I'll leave the decision on where/how to make the proposal up to you guys, as I'm not familiar with the history of it.  You definitely don't want to attract too much attention to it, and you'll want to strongly stress multiple times that it has already been decided that this trial will take place in a prior RfC, and that the trial is only to decide how to implement it, not to argue again about whether or not it should be implemented.  Userspace doesn't strike me as an appropriate place for a proposal like this.  Once the stats are complete, feel free to move the stats page out of my userspace to wherever you feel it will be best located.  &mdash;SW&mdash; verbalize 01:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably no  need to  move it. Your stats page can be transcluded to  the RfC.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stats updated and some new stats posted. I'll work on getting the stats on blocked users now.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confer 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've figured out how to get the blocked user stats in a timely manner. The stats will be updated and completed by tomorrow.  Let me know if there are any other relevant stats that you think are missing from the page.  &mdash;SW&mdash; comment 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I did some digging and took a look at the original RfC. My opinion would be to create a subpage of the original RfC, like Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial implementation.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> babble 23:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again SW. Yes I  agree with  your idea for the location -  I  think most  of us think that  would be the best  place. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I agree. Rivertorch (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, done with the stats. I added the blocked user stats as well as some other graphs which might be of interest.  Be sure to let me know if anything is missing, and let me know when you start the discussion regarding the specifics of the trial period.  Thanks.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> prattle 16:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion on  the trial  duration from a user's space to  Wikipedia RfC  and restarted it after a month of stagnation. It has been listed at the VP as an RfC and  it  is hoped that this time round there will  be more participation  and a focused discussion. There will be separate discussions for the necessary  changes to  the site software and the interface messages. Thanks for the help you  have all  provided,  especially  with  the stats. Let's get it  over and done with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * trial start


 * I'm confused by the wording. It sounds as though the 30-day discussion period will run concurrently with the statistics being gathered for comparison. Shouldn't the discussion begin after the stats are gathered? Trial → gather stats → discuss should be the order, imo. Feel free to move this to the RfC talk page if you think it belongs there instead. I'm pressed for time and going offline now. Rivertorch (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. However, now that  we have created the scripts and bots and have done the stats for the last  6 months, it  will  only  take a day  to  run the scripts again and create overlapping  graphs. That still  leaves a whole 30/31 days for a full RfC discussion on  what  to  do  with  the results.Also, I am personally  expecting  to  see the reduction  in  spam, vandalism, hoax, nonsense, and attack  pages reflect a dramatic reduction  from  day  1 of the trial and the bots can monitor and record this on  a daily  basis if SN has the time. We absolutely  must  avoid this trial duration  RfC becoming  a re-debate of the new policy, or people using  it  in  an attempt  to  stave off the inevitable. nevertheless, after the trial the metrics could reveal  that  the new policy  is a flop. So  be it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll probably take a couple of days to see the full effect (after implementation, we'll have to clean out the last 30 days, which could take a while), but that's more or less what I think as well. More to come at the RfC itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, then. I'll go offer my grudging support. (Btw, time for an archive here, perhaps? Your talk page is vast and growing ever vaster.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you around?
I noticed you've done a couple of edits...

There's a WP:LIBEL issue on a school article. I've e-mailed in, but nothing has happened so far. Starting to be concerned that the address is wrong/etc. If you're on, can you delete some edits from a history? - danjel  (talk to me) 05:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Spent 3 hours last  night  patiently  trying  to  help  a newb and then I  get  called a troll. That's libelous enough! Give me a link  and I'll  look into it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh. :) 'Tis a thankless job.


 * . I removed a statement in my edit []. The content was initially added at an IP's edit [].


 * I don't know anything about the situation, but I'm sure that a teacher doesn't want that said about him anywhere subject to google. - danjel  (talk to me) 05:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's nothing you  need to  do  about  it. Its content  is not  described in  the  ES, so  it  should be OK. I'll  keep  my  eye on  the Ip  and there is one more single vandalism  I'll  block. However, the article has a whole host o problems and I'm  now in the middle of doing  a slash  'n burn on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rev del'd ir anyway. This is the first time I've done this, I  hope I  did it right! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You might also need to remove: [] and [] because the diffs contain the problematic content.


 * That's true, the article needs a lot of work. Don't worry about it if you've got other things to do... I'll get to it eventually. Cheers. - danjel  (talk to me) 06:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Trinity Catholic School
Hi Kudpung, you left the discussion at Talk:Trinity Catholic School hanging in the air rather. You made an allegation about a revertion, but have failed to respond to my follow-up comments and question. Have you realised that you were mistaken? Do you plan to try to justify your action? Would you mind if I tidied up your last edit, or even reverted it? It seems rather unfair of you to leave the discussion with no further justification or retraction. I'm anxiously awaiting your response so that I can decide how best to proceed. Twopenneth (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please remember that I'm  in  a very different  time zone and occasionally  I  cat  nap  between editing ;) I  have examined this issue and I  find that  I  did indeed make an error -  I  had several  windows open  and I  assumed your edit summary  about  your edits being  'stomped on' to  refer to  an edit  I  had made; I  was mistaken, please accept  my  apologies. Nevertheless, I  have withdrawn from  further editing  or intervention  concerning  these two  articles as the issues are becoming  contentious and I  feel  I  should  let  neutral  parties take over. I  have notified coordinators of the projects under whose aegis the  articles  fall. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for replying; perhaps you could add something similar to the article's talkpage at Talk:Trinity Catholic School. :-) Twopenneth (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion
This response surprised me, so I thought I would solicit a second opinion from a seasoned NPPer before replying. 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ouch! NPP is in an even far worse state than we all  thought  it  was. Goodness knows what  they have been doing  but they've clocked up  15,000 edits in  7 months and should know better. Seems to have quite a few problems. Try  them  with  links to  WP:NPP and WP:CSD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Antony Powell
Yes, I agree, it could be read as a personal attack, and I did consider changing the CSD. I am glad it is gone, thank you. MarB4 <span style="border:2px solid orange;background: gold;-webkit-border-radius: 16px;-moz-border-radius:16px;color:white;width: 20px;height:20px"> •ɯɒɹ• 23:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Adminship requirements
Why do all candidates for RfA mention something about creating lots of articles for GA or DYK? Adminship deals with deletion more than creation. And why is a high automated tool usage bad for an RfA? Destroying vandals and page protecting are both automated. Blocking is semi-automated. Having high automated tool usage and excellent deletion nominations and vandalism destroying accuracy should help an RfA, or is there something I'm missing? -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 04:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll find all  the answers to exactly those questions, directly addressed, in  WP:WPSCH and its sub pages and their talk  pages. You're looking  for a chauffeur right? So  four  turn  up  at  the interview. One has been driving  for twenty  years and done around 1.2 million  miles and has had one very minor accident. Another has been around for three years and has done 60,000 miles, accident  free. The third one says "I've had a driving licence for years, I'm an car mechanic - I've repaired thousands of cars."  The fourth driver says "Oh, I don't actually do much driving - the cars I drive have an on-board computer that I programme for each trip, and then I sleep while the car is moving. I do actually drive a car occasionally - like when I go for a burgher or a six-pack." Which one will you hire? The question is not rhetorical, but I don't need to know your answer. FWIW, I don't personally have any DYK - I still can't figure out what they're good for, I only have 5 GA, and I've only created around 60 full-page, complete articles. What I can most definitely say is that had I not done that, I would never have accrued enough experience in all areas to become an admin.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: You might  also  find this interesting. t  was written  long  before I  ever got  involved in  RfA  reform  or considered becoming an admin. BTW: blocking  is not  atomated, it  needs a very  human  decision. Only  the complex process of placing  all  the templates and implementing  the actual software block  are automated. CorenBot  is excellent  for catching  COPYVIO but  has a lot of false positive, for example from  sites that  copy  Wikipedia content. Page protecting  is not  automated, except in so far as implementing  the actual  software lock, and needs a considered human  decision. Bots can catch  some vandalism based on  parameters that  have been entered into  their databases but  they  do  not  catch  them all, and there are a lot of false positives. For those who  take their !voting  and/or candidadacy  seriously, the major focus at RfA is on demonstrating  accuracy  of work, people management, and civility. Many  of those who  think they  are doing  a great  job, and helping  newbies etc., unfortunately do  not  demonstrate a sufficiently  high  level  of skill, and some tend to  think  that  Wikipedia is a game, or a pastime for younger people. There are a lot of old-fashioned, mature, highly  qualified contributors -  8% of the regulars have a PhD, and an even larger number of them  have bachelor and master degrees. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I could've been clearer; when I was mentioning blocking and page protecting being mostly automated it was from a Huggler's view. And then I read your criteria and saw the part about 150,000 AIV reports, which answered my question more. Thank you. -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (Patiently begins waiting for the further and/or additional reply) -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * FireFox crashed as I was posting  it  and I  lost it. Sorry  for messing  you  about. It  was something  on  the lines of 150,000 Huggle edits being  no  big  deal. They  can be done at  a rate of one every  15 seconds -  and often are, which  demonstrates that  not  all  the required research  is being  done. Vandalism reverts for example, are often a false positive. At  RfA a high  number of auto  edits is OK  provided the candidate shows a sufficient  number of manual edits that  need careful  consideration and judgement,  and contribution  to  article content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Content
OMG Kudpung! Sorry! I didn't realise :S I'm on my stupid IPod on Wikipedia, and when I am on my watchlist, I press the "diff" button...and instead of it pressing that, it presses the "Rollback" button instead. Again, sorry! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 06:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI
I just undid your latest change, as it appears that you accidentally removed MuZemike's block note in an editing mistake.

Please feel free to readd your comment if you can avoid accidentally deleting someone else's ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks as if it  is a day  for everyone making  innocent  slips of a mouse :) Thanks for the heads up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: I can't find the diff to  see what  I  did -  I  can't  recall  having  any  reason  to  edit  his page -  can you  give me a link please? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Seems I  have a problem with  oversensitivity  of my  Magic Trackpad. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer, it was your comment on ANI itself, this one. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly  sorry, and I  see the edit  didn't  record my  post. Thanks again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Obare awora
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Obare awora to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Trinity logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Trinity logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The file has been orphaned because a new file has been uploaded. It's not needed anymore and can be deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011
<div 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 &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cars (franshise) not finished
Hello. This is TAR2C. I was still working on the page Cars (franschise) and I had alot of other information I was going to use. I do understand why the page was tagged for speedy deletion. Can you give me another 24 hours? I'd like to finish the page. Thanks!

TAR2C — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAR2C (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. We already have an article on  it. Please read properly the deletion notice on  your talk  page even if it is a bit  long,  and remember to  sign  your talk  page messages.  Feel  free to  expand the existing article. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India
Sigh! See my comments at Talk:Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India. I wash my hands of it. I've notified two relevant projects, perhaps they can do something with it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, both the article and the talk page have now been re-userfied by another admin. See User talk:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw. Have you ever worked in India? I have. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My quixotic self got the best of me. I left a detailed critique at User talk:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India re what must be done. I'm not sure they realise that the article requires a complete re-write rather than tacking on random irrelevant references and changing a few headings. But at least there's a clear benchmark. We'll see... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Quixotic? Nope, you were just  doing  what  I  would have done - if I  had the time ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)