User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jun 2013

Permission request
Would you or the first admin stalker who sees this removed the autopatrolled permission from my account? I haven't done much article creation lately, so I am not a burden to NPPers, and when I do create articles, it can't hurt to have a second set of eyes take a look in case I miss something. Thanks.  Go  Phightins  !  02:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Don't hesitate to  ask  for it  back  whenever you're ready. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

AN
Could you rev-del the two recent comments right before yours at AN?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't  think it's necessary, or to  even remove them. Once again  Malleus shows himself in  his same old true colours,  and admin Jayron  is quite capable of complaining  if he wants to. Let's not  over-react. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This request is regarding my own edits.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems the oversighters got it just a few minutes ago.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Why so Stingy?
Hi there! I am just asking you not to be too strict and stingy to users requesting rollback as seen here:, we don't want to drop a user's hope in being an admin in Wikipedia as you did this to User:IPhonehurricane95. Please even though you are an admin here does not mean that you can be rude, go on and apologize to that user! Please and Thank you. --Prabash ''' What?  22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment here and your edit  summary are inappropriate. (and the issue is none of your business). Please investigate the background more thoroughly before coming  here and making  personal  attacks. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I never meant a personal attack towards you. I shouldn't bud in. Again I apologize for my rude behavior to you, just wanted a more nicer approach towards that user that's all. --Prabash ''' What?  23:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't actively defend disruptive editors
Comments like this one strike me as being highly inappropriate. How can we ever develop a consensus to ban an editor if any discussion of how disruptive he is is immediately shut down? Issuing warnings and hatting discussions is not the solution here, as it defends the use of personal attacks during discussions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That shows just  how little you  know of the background and about  me. The very  last  thing  I  would do  on  Wikipedia is to  defend the disruptive, uncivil, and PA pushing  users. I  didn't  initiate the biggest campaign ever to  reform  RfA to  waste mine and everyone else's time. You'll  note that  the section  was finally hatted by  another, highly  respected admin who shared my  opinion. What  I  also  intensly  dislike is side tracking -  it's what  mostly  disrupts almost  every  RfC and discussion  on  Wikipedia and makes consensus so  hard to  achieve. I  find your comment  above highly  inapropriate, especially  from  a fellow admin. If  you  would like to  know more, please contact  by  email. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Gold Coast Parklands article
Hello, I'm new to wikipedia and wish to create an article on the Gold Coast Parklands, Queensland, Australia. It's a show ground, concert venue and major sporting complex which is about to be demolished to make way for the 2018 Commonwealth Games village. It's enjoyed a high profile over the decades so verification, sources and citations etc should not be a challenge. I noticed that you have previously deleted an article for a copyright infringement. Is it appropriate for me to start a new article? 10:22, 17 November 2011 Kudpung (talk | contribs) deleted page Gold Coast Parklands (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of http://www.parklandsgoldcoast.com/about-us.html)Many thanks! Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest  you  develop a new draft article in  your sandbox or a user sub  page ( such  as User:Coastal.culture.vulture/Gold Coast Parklands (Draft)) first and ask me or another admin  to  review it  for you  before it  is moved to  mainspace. Do note that no  text  may  be lifted from  other websites, and notability  must  be established by  multiple, verifiable, reliable sources. See: WP:RS, and WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the advice and kind offer to review the initial article. I'll get started on a draft. Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ccroberts123 again
FYI: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cheers (and good morning!) - DVdm (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Just in case...

 * ...you hadn't checked. — Mel bourne Star  ☆ talk 05:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion?
Hi Kudpung, as someone very knowledgeable in articles about education, could you cast your eye over Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lyceum of the Philippines University-Laguna and let me know you thoughts on its notability? Particularly considering its relationship to Lyceum of the Philippines University. Thanks in advance. Pol430  talk to me  08:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not  sure what  to  make of this. It  could be a fork. if it's a college of the Lyceum of the Philippines University, it  should be merged to  that  article if  it  provides additional  information. The Filipinos are notorious  for spamming  the encyclopedia, but  I  don't  think it's spam -  it  appears to  be a bona fide institution  offering  undergrad and post grad courses. You  might  wish  to  check  the histories and see if the same editors have been contributing  to  both articles. I  wouldn't  have declined the submission  per se, bu  as it  rings an alarm  bell,  I  would have engaged the creator in  some discussion. I  know this isn't  much, but  I  hope it helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it helps :) Pol430   talk to me  17:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you GP. I didn't  know anybody  cared! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd know how to handle this
It appears IPhonehurricane95 is requesting rollback again. I did advise him/her on their talk page about making some revert but I'm bringing it to your attention since you usually handle these things. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 15:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IPhonehurricane95 has since been indeffed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Steps Toward Adminship
Hello! I am andrewrp, and I would like to get active editing Wikipedia again. Currently, as well as in the past, I have done article anti-vandalism work, as well as CFD's using NPwatcher. I have taken a brief hiatus from Wikipedia to work on other projects, but would like to start working again. In addition to my anti-vandalism, I would also like to get more involved on actually editing and improving articles, as I see this issue as a sort of weak point for me. My reasons for desiring administratorship are numerous. In my brief time I have been back here (though I occasionally monitored), there seems to be large backlogs in AIV, Speedy Deletion, as well as page protection. I have a pretty flexible schedule right now that would allow me to clear these backlogs when they become a problem. There also seems to be (not sure if this is the product of when I visit), a larger amount of vandalism then there was a while back. I realize I most likely am not ready for an administratorship yet. When I was getting started, I think I took my important position as a rollbacker and anti-vandalism watcher too lightly. I do feel, as well, I had not taken the time to thoroughly familiarize myself with various Wikipedia policies. As a result, I have gotten myself into various uncomfortable and very bad situations, which I feel could possibly jeopardize my candidacy. I would like to ask you if it would be possible to review my account and provide me with steps I may take as I return to editing that would help me not only become an administrator, but also help the Wikipedia community as a whole. Thank you, and all the best, Andrew  AndrewrpTally-ho! 03:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew. Firstly, you need to  opt in  for the month counts here so  that  we have quick  access to  what  you  have done on  Wikipedia. Then I suggest  you  read WP:Advice for RfA candidates, and also follow all  the links there. If  you  are able to  check  all  the boxes at here you  may  be getting  close. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Receptie123
Hello, this user:[] on Simple Wikipedia claims in a userbox to own User:Receptie123, which is very likely looking at the similarity of Reception123's page on Simple and Receptie123's (old) page on English. User:Receptie123 is a comfirmed sock puppet of User:Licusoara. I am bringing this to your attention because I don't know what the policy is on using accounts on other language wikipedias after being blocked indefinitely on one. Sockpuppet_investigations/Licusoara/Archive is the investigation. Surfer43 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally what  people do  on other Wikis in isn't directly  a concern for us here. In  fact under some circumstances, when we block  someone we occasionally  suggest  they  go  to  Simple English  and get  some experience there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Simple English Wikipedia has what's called their one-strike rule. If you were disruptive on another project, you may be blocked on the Simple English Wikipedia for a single strike, i.e. a single incident.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue (if there is one - and I  don't  intend to  go  there and look) is one for discussion  on  Simple English  Wiki and their rules and admins.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Message
I replied at User talk:Dennis Brown. Does the co-nominator offer still stand? I would be honoured. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It most  certainly  does, and I've had a draft  co-nom  waiting  on  my  computer for several  days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm delighted. Thank you so much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Help request dealing with COI/SPA/SPAM dynamic IP user
Hi Kudpung, I see that you are busy right now, but if you have time again, would you like to have a look at the following single-purpose editor with a clear conflict of interest, who is editing under various dynamic IPs (User talk:219.66.196.20, User talk:219.66.195.173, User talk:119.18.148.3, User talk:202.53.170.195, User talk:219.66.194.91 - the last one the most recently used one) but sometimes also under the account name User talk:Mike willaims?

This user (I'm quite sure, all IPs belong to the same user, as they exhibit the same editing pattern) has repeatedly inserted the name (S.(Saikat) Nick Barua/Saikat Nick Barua) into articles (possibly his personal name?).

He also added two persons, which, by their name, may be relatives (Dipak Barua and Dilip Barua), as well as a number of company names (DC group of Companies, DC Enterprises, T.K Group of Industries, T.K. Group, KANBE Pte Ltd and several spelling variants of them), which, according to LinkedIn and other publically available business profiles, belong to him/them.

The list of affected articles is: List of programmers, List of Young Global Leaders, List of Yale University people, Barua, List of Bangladeshi people, List of management consulting firms, List of Bengalis, Bangladesh, Kobe, Hyōgo Prefecture, Dhaka, Bengali literature, Political consulting, Chittagong, Esmod, Norton AntiVirus, List of companies of Bangladesh, List of Rice University people, Kawran Bazar.

In particular the (re-)insertion of the name "S.(Saikat) Nick Barua" into various lists of notable people by User talk:219.66.194.91 and User talk:Mike willaims has been a significant and repeating edting pattern in recent months. We don't have an article about this person and according to my research, there is no coverage in the press or books as well. Once having been a programmer at Microsoft or Norton is hardly a notability criteria for us, either.

Yesterday, the editor switched to insert the "T.K. Group" name into a different set of articles (as he did already some while back).

The editor is totally unresponsive to hints in edit summaries and explanations/warnings given on the various IP talk pages, except for that in some cases, he switched between his current IP and the Mike willaims account soon after something was posted on the talk page.

I think that the user account and the corresponding IPs need to be blocked and possibly the names he inserted into articles be added to a filter so that he does not continue to add them under another dynamic IP.

Thanks for having a look. Greetings, Matthias --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The only thing to  do  here is to  semi  protect  the pages - which  I'm  doing  now. You  can help  by  removing  all  the redlinked names from  these articles, using  Rm  unsourced nn names without  Wiki pages per WP:LISTPEOPLE as your  edit summary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kudpung, I hope this will help him getting the message. I see that you have cleaned up the links as well already, thanks for that as well. Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Unfortunately, he's continuing as before... See Esmod and List of conglomerates in Bangladesh under IP 119.18.148.3 (and as Mike willaims at Commons)... Interestingly, the page List of conglomerates in Bangladesh is new in the set and the corresponding entry there was originally added ([]) by another user (User:Maqayum).
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strange coincidence that an article about T K Group gets created by User:ChaudhryAzan today, and the entry about them gets edited just a bit earlier by IP 119.18.148.3 ?
 * And this IP 202.53.170.194 is clearly involved as well...
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I assure you, that's not my IP. But strange coincidence it certainly is. The company is notable, since it's one of the leading business groups from the city of Chittagong. Given the city's economic importance, I felt there needs to be a page on it.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Paulo Valentim (guitarist)
I am fully aware that it was in Portuguese. However I do not believe as it was it was a page from Portuguese wikipedia. It was just a pile pf pooh, still is. I'm a great believer in people developing their pages in their sandboxes, then putting them live, not just flinging everything into wikipedia. I think I'll mark it again, it's just rubbish, in Portuguese or in English. Why should other people waste their time translating this ordure? John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Fri 10:42, wikitime=  09:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Nobody will  waste their timewith  it -  not  even me. For those who  don't  read other languages, a quick  Google translation  will  see what  an article is worth. The emphasis is, however, on  getting  the CSD tags right. Silly  articles in  other languages will  be deleted automatically if they  are not  translated into  proper articles after two  weeks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I think you should remove garbage like this and make the OP develop it fully before not after. How can WP hope to be a work of authority with this sort of rubbish in it?  John of Cromer in transit  (talk) mytime= Fri 11:40, wikitime=  10:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Page protection
Hello! Can you please full protect protect Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureș? The article was protected until yesterday, but the protection expired and now Rob.Hun makes again changes in lack of a consensus. Thanks in advance! Raysdiet (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Raysdiet (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As an Administrator please note: the editor Raysdiet repeatedly uses Administrators in a recurring scheme as proxies to exercise Administrartor rights: Raysdiet is in continuous dispute on basically all Székelys and Hungarians in Romania related articles. Raysdiet is trying to hinder editing by simply deleting even properly sourced expansions of all such articles. Claims "there is no consesnsus" without counterarguments, expresses objection without presenting reliable contradicting sources and provokes edit-warring then turns to administrators to have the article protected. --Rob.HUN (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Rob.HUN, arguments are on the talk pages. Changes should not be imposed by force. WP:DR is the next step if you don't agree with my arguments Raysdiet (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page for disruptive editing/editwarring, without prejudice to  who  is in the right or whatever the most recent  stable version was. Please seek help  at  DR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't complain about your closing the article. I tried to explain you a scheme in which Administrators can be easily abused and lurked into acting in a way against the fundamental aim and spirit of Wikipedia. --Rob.HUN (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Blogs in Swan Lake (The Cats song)
have been largely replaced, however there is one part of it which refers to the disc itself and unfortunately the blog uses Flash, meaning it shares a URL with the main page.-- Laun  chba  ller  13:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Nicita
There are no references to this person that are reliable, I am now asking to speedily delete this page////it seems he is not notable08:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Matrobi1 (talk)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung&action=edit&section=new#
 * I can't  find such  a page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK - found. ✅. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review
Thanks for reviewing my article Marilyn E. Jacox! Yes, I understand the issue, but I can't resolve it, since some of them don't have date of birth or alumnis on their University pages. I will appreciate if you will help me find more info.--Mishae (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would if I could, Mishae, but  I  don't  have access to  any more resources than you  do. Perhaps you  could try  Google. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats exactly what I am using...--Mishae (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about this?  Go  Phightins  !  03:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good - go  for it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? It looks like a blog, since it have comment option on the bottom. Plus there is no year date just: "she will be honoured with such and such award on March 25"???--Mishae (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, CNN.com all have comment sections. They're all reliable.  Go  Phightins  !  17:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Above and beyond the call of duty...
Hi Kudpung! Did you really join Facebook to check out the Don Bosco Bandel miscreants? That's well above and beyond the call of of admin duty. You should have asked me to take a look. I joined a few years ago with the far less noble motivation of snooping on my teenage niece and nephew. Anyhow, the Facebook prediction came true. The young lads started sockpuppeting and vandalising the article on a rival Don Bosco school in revenge. In my usual quixotic fashion, I went off and cleaned up the flaming boosterism and copyvio in that one and two more Don Boscos, ,. Unfortunately, WP has articles on 31 more Don Bosco schools (7 of them in India), but I'm not even going to look at them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I designed and delivered a teacher training  programme for a DB school  here in  Thailand some years ago ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Anna Frodesiak
The page awaits your co-nomination. Thank you, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to see she chose you to nom as well. Happy to be sitting next to you, presenting her to the community. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Transclusion
To transclude, it seems like I need to replace this:



...with this:



Is that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think so. Don't forget to "accept" it, too ;)  I will be around for a few minutes if you want to do it now.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I did it. Now, I still see "(?/?/?)". Did I do it right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That'll change to 1/0/0 now :)  Go  Phightins  !  02:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The bot that tracks it and lists it is always a bit behind. Looks good.  I've added my !vote as well.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And the link "Voice your opinion on this candidate" and redlink beside it says "Anna Frodesiak 2", but I did not accept the first time, so I don't understand that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * oops, you forgot (and so did I) to actually transclude on the main WP:RFA page. Now done, correctly I think. Lemme look again...  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think everything is fixed. It might be from the previous RfA that was deleted with your name on it, but regardless, I manually fixed the "2" issues.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Transcluding an RfA is a horrible and complex thing -  I  can't  remember how I  got  mine right (perhaps someone did it for me). I  never cease to  wonder how some totally  inappropriate candidates manage to  do  it. Glad I'm  not  a 'crat, closing  them seems to  even more difficult. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that up. I have a feeling that the transclusion thing is deliberately complex to be some sort of bizarre and cruel competency test. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is, is probably  works! That  said, nobody  really  minds having  it  done for you. Good luck :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It actually is. I have seen people oppose an RfA because it was transcluded improperly, which I think is silly.  I screwed my own RfA up, but Pedro (my nom) was kind enough to fix it for me.  My RfA was just over a year ago, I still remember how nervous I was.  It is understandable, but in your case, unnecessary. Well, It is almost 11pm, so I'm off to bed.  Here is something to listen to:  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear oh dear. :) Well, thank you both again. Sorry I can't see YouTube videos. The site is blocked in China. Sleep well. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Too bad, "Bobby McFerrin - Don't Worry Be Happy", a most appropriate tune right now. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! One of my favourite songs -  I  have it  in my  in-car entertainment  system (along  with a couple 1,000 jazz rock, hard rock, and classics (especially  Elgar, and definitely  no  Wagner!); Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So...
AFAIK WP:WPSCH/AG states that Non-notable school articles are generally redirected to the locality article so shouldn't we be applying THAT instead of keeping a non-notable school in it's own article in this case? PantherLeapord (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The full explanation is documented at  WP:Outcomes (note that  this is not  an essay or an opinion piece, it  simply  chronicles what  is generally  done). Please be sure to  read that, but  to  summarise: All bona fide high  schools that  are proven to  exist will  not be deleted, while primary (elementary) schools, being  rarely  notable, are blanked and redirected to  the the list  of schools on  the school district's article (USA) or to  the education  section  of the school's locality (rest  of the world). These precedents are clearly  established through  hundreds, if not  1,000s of attempted AfDs over many  years. Multiple RfCs and other attempts to  get  this precent  changed have all  failed. I  hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

some information about Guorui Jiang
hello，i am a new editor for wikipedia,serval days ago,i edit the lemma “Guorui jiang”，this lemma have all reference i can find，but it still have two warnings:(1)This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia;(2)This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. i don't know how to correct it,can you help me?thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activeboy (talk • contribs) 11:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

KingUvdaStreet Urban Clothing
Hi Kudpung I want to thank you for the wonderful feedback and information you given as to the reason for speedy deletion. if you can please give us a chance to make add more relevent information that would be much appreciated. I understand that your time is important and Wikopedia is not a source for spam or not relevant information.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maneone4u (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is unlikely  that  any  article about  this company  will  meet our requiremnts for notability  any  time soon. For more information, please see WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. Please also  read Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and WP:Multiple accounts. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Official notice of discussion
Kudpung, there is a discussion of your rather unsavoury user conduct going on at RfA talk page.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  10:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't both replying there though - they've declined to provide any evidence of "unsavoury user conduct", and will soon get a formal warning for civility unless they can provide even an iota of proof PDQ (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the discussion remains ongoing with Kudpungs conduct remaining questionable.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  11:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a question Retro: policy and human decency both state that when faced with a concern with another editor/person, you're REQUIRED to discuss it directly with them in order to resolve it at the lowest level. Could you please show me where such human decency was tried and unsuccessful?  As you well know, going anywhere else first is merely drama at its highest (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 11:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Answer withheld as Bwilkins should remove himself from this discussion as he is clearly WP:Involved. By stating that my no vote was WRONG, I don't think you can have an impartial discussion regarding this RfA.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  11:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrolord, you are now only  the third user who  I  have ever banned from  posting  here. (see my talk page notice for more information). You are welcome to continue your 'discussion' anywhere else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion goes on at RfA regardless. Have a nice day.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  11:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Further to that, the discussion is pretty much over. It has been decided you went a bit too far labelling opposing votes as purely disruptive. I'm done talking on your talk page now, ban me if you must  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  11:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not  really  bothered, as you  can see from  my  talk  page header. Please go  and troll  elsewhere, and if you  continue here, I  raise a formal  complaint. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Kudpung. I won't waste your time by filling up your talk page, but I will say that I should be available for a chat later - it's been a while since we caught up. I've said elsewhere that your comments that votes are disruptive are unfair, as I mentioned it only puts the opposers on the defensive, making them oppose more vehemently, making the whole process more unpleasant for all involved. Personally, I think that "virgin" RfAs are a bad thing, those who have them don't appreciate that they are acting at the communities will in the same way. Those admins who either pass narrowly or have an unsuccessful RfA seem to make the best admins, appreciating the role. Worm TT( talk ) 11:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been 85 'no oppose' RfA since 2008 and most  of those were in  the days when the turn out  for RfA was a lot  lower than  it  today. I  don't  see how it  has affected their performance one way  or the other, indeed if many  of them are still truly  active. The interesting  thing is that  now where the turnout  is much  higher, a 0 oppose is obviously  going  to be increasingly  rare, but the increased participation  is a positive turn, even if many  of them are 'one-off' voters or relative newbies who  don't  fully  understand thne system  and its problems. . The core of regulars has changed over time, and there are very  few RfA 'regulars' around from the time when I  started voting  at  RfA. Sadly, among  the regulars are still  several  of those diehards who either disrupt, or simply  vote 'oppose' because they  have an antipathy  for everything  connected with  adminship. Even more disturbing, among  them  are some of our most  prolific content  contributors -  and that's mainly  the fault  of an overly  forgiving  ARBCOM, and this give a cue to  the newbie voters on  the block. It had been hoped that  the new ARBCOM  would do  something  about  it, unfortunately  the ARBCOM trend appears to  be even more forgiving, and the status quo  at  RfA  remains. I  wouldn't  ever want  to  be an Arb -  Like Wilkins and Beeb and a few others, I do  too  much  of the dirty  work  here to  avoid accumulating  enemies among the trolls and I wouldn't   get  elected anyway, but  I  do  consider myself to  be among  the handfull  of outspoken admins who like to  see justice done -  harshly  if need be - and although  I  can be occasionally  blunt  with  my  comments, I  do  get  things done and occasionally  changed and I've never been legitimately admonished; I'm  never as rude or out  of order as some of the Arbs occasionally  are. I  think  you're doing  a splendid job up  there, but  I  still  don't  see ARBCOM  generally changing  much  for the better - there are just too  few of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done bit of reading, and it looks like I'm pretty much totally wrong about the people who have "virgin" RfAs, they're generally people who deserve it. It's amazing how much your memory clouds the actual facts with perceptions. The biggest pity about the increased participation in the process is that it is marked by a decreased number of candidates - I wonder how much the two facts are linked, if we were to up the candidates would participation go down?
 * As for ARBCOM, when you see how much crap there is to deal with, you start to understand why the committee isn't proactive and why they define a narrow scope and stick to it. The committee isn't able to fix processes, nor take out specific editors, without following the bureaucracy it has put around itself for protection. As for rude or out of order arbs, I'm doing my best to keep the committee on the straight and narrow, but if something comes up where you see an arb acting out of line, drop me a note, either on my talk page or by email and I'll see what's going on and if there's anything I can do. Worm TT( talk ) 09:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt for a moment that there is a huge amount of crap that arrives on  the ARBCOM desk that the rest of us never get  to  hear  about - not  quite the same, but  probably  a bit  like OTRS. I don't  envy your work. I  think  probably  now is the time to  increment  the number of arbs. RfA 'seems' to  be picking  up  a bit  lately. There will  always be the occasional  troll who  spoils things, but  it  looks as if the community  is slowly  getting  the message. We'll  probably  have more new admins in 2013 than we did last  year. That  said, the threshold for computing  the number of active admins is ridiculously low, and a close look  will  show that  we're really  only  about 10 - 15 (if that) who  stand up  and take the flak  when the shit hits the fan. Someone's gotta do it ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
You have talkback at ANI  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  06:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Friendly reminder that this is the third time you have disregarded my request to stay off my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know you have talkback. Common courtesy in regards to ANI discussions. No need to be so aggressive.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  07:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to point out that the golden rule applies here. When you say Kudpung is banned from your userpage for life, in all-caps no less, how do you think he feels? How would you feel if he ignored your own request?--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When he called them a complete disgrace I assumed he meant that mine was invalid, as was his.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  07:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One more peep from  you  here RetroLord, and I  assure you, you  will  be blocked by  some admin  or another for harrassment, disruptive editing,  or any other complaint  that  fits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll stop. Calm down.  ★ ★ RetroLord★ ★  07:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You can now add 'trolling' to  list  of uncollegial comments and a refusal  to  bide by  polite requests. I  am  now doing  something  unprecedented in  the entire history  of this talk page - I am  going  to  full  protect it  for a few hours until you  have learned some of the guidelines and policies here. There will  be some collateral  damage of course, because I'm  a busy  user and admin and others want  to  contact me here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Page protection
I have protected this page for a short  while to  prevent  further disruption. My apologies to  anyone who  wishes to  post  here. If anything  is urgent  or important, please feel  free to  email me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

SkateSlate (Magazine)
Hi, I believe i have addressed your concerns. Can you please take a look and let me know if you still have any concerns? I have removed any subjective language, I have added publicly available 3rd party references to cite the dates and and information in the article. The article is just as relevant as any other skateboarding magazine, but I understand the article may have been written poorly before. Please take a look and let me know if you still have concerns. We are happy to address any problems.

Thanks,

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacutting (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim, unfortunately, the article does not meet our notability criteria for periodicals, so  I  have sent  it  for discussion  by  the community  who  will  decide if it  is to  be kept  or deleted. That  discussion  will  last  for 7 days during  which  you  are welcome to  search  for reliable sources that  will  confer notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561205810 your edit] to Woodstock Union High School may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * | enrollment =

Base26gps
Hi. You PRODded this, but the PROD was removed. That was reverted, but I have told the reverter he's not supposed to do that. Over to you to decide whether you want to AfD it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, John. Sent to  AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Positive Behavior Video page deletion
I am attempting to find our more on your deletion of my BBQuIP page that I constructed this morning. I re-submitted the page again with links to University affiliation and government program WIkipedia pages and it was still deleted. Mpinkelton (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Four different  users - two  new-page patrollers and two  admins have concluded that  the page should be deleted as not  complying  with  Wikipedia requirements for articles. Unfortunately, our rules are not  clearly  enough  expressed for new users (we hope that  will  change in  the future), but the two  main  issues are: It's promotional (although it  may  not  immediately appear to  be so  from  the creator's point  of view), and most importantly, it  fails to  meet our  criteria for notability. All  articles must  be referenced to  reliable, independent sources that  give in-depth coverage to  the subject. These sources may  not  be primary  sources or sources closely  connected with  the subject, or any other sources where the information  has been supplied by  the subject  (e.g. interviews, press releases, routine listings, or the subject's own web site, etc).  For more information on  notablity, please see WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert A. J. Gagnon
Hello Kudpung,

Thanks for taking a peek, and I appreciate your observations.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel
Hi Kudpung, I'm in the process of archiving requests on WP:AN/RFC that have been dealt with. I saw you make suggestions on the RfC talk page about the closure of the above. Are you in the process of closing it, or should I leave the request open on AN/RFC? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Slim. There has been no further progress towards a conclusion on  this RfC as you  will  see. You  are welcome to  close/archive it as an uninvolved admin per recommended closure instructions. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I wasn't thinking of closing it myself (though I will take a look), but was wondering whether I should leave the request open on WP:AN/RFC. I'll leave it open for now anyway. Thanks again. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be great if you could could archive it. IMHO, such a close at this stage would be uncontentious. If  involved parties still  have any remaining grievance, they will have to  start a new discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a lot to read, so I can't promise I'll do the close, but I'll certainly have a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

About the RfC, Jclemens has attempted to canvass for it at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron (see ) and is apparently trying to muster a vote against me after indication the RfC was heading to a no consensus. What can be done about that ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand the problems and I have left  a message for Jclemens but I'm  not  going  to  offer an opinion  or advice here and risk  my  talk  page being  turned into  a surrogate dispute resolution venue. If  you  wish  to  escalate, please choose an appropriate noticeboard and take it  there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, just to let you know that I've closed the RfC. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you SV. You  went  far  beyond  the call  of duty  there for such  a stale RfC, and made an excellent summary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's appreciated. I hope it helps! SlimVirgin (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Padraig Singal
Just out of interest, why did you turn that CSD into a PROD? The article is a blatant hoax.  Yinta n  22:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (Shhhh! I knew as soon  as I saw this). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * D'oh! (hits forehead)  Yinta n   07:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Robert A. J. Gagnon
It's really offensive, isn't it, basically being accused of nominating an article out of dislike for someone's position. I try to let these things just run off me, but I'm not always successful at that. Take it easy Kudpung, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please revisit this one.  DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎
Can you restore its indefinite move-sysop-protection? I think it was removed by mistake. Thanks. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * his is from the log:
 * 22:32, 26 June 2013 Kudpung (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)) (vandalism from blocked IP hopper) (hist | change).


 * The page was only full  protected for a couple of hours and the protection  should have automatically  expired long  ago.. If  the server clock  has a glitch, then I'm  afraid I  don't  know what  to  do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've move protected it. When you add semi with TW, it often changes the move to the same time, so they expire at the same time, but it should be indef move protected simply because the temptation of abuse is too high.  I think if you use the regular interface to protect, it is easier to have different times for the different protect types.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  00:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tanks Dennis. I fully  realise now what  happened and i  was in  the process of doing  it  when you  beat  me to  it. FWIW, I  always use the regular pp page and not  the Twinkle version. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gotten to where I use it as well. TW is still handy for a lot of things, but certainly not for combination protections.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  00:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A request
Kudpung, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your heavy handed approach is coming across as bullying. I've only recently joined the situation, and the comments you are focussing on with respect to WorldTraveller101 are completely legitimate and only trivially problematic. He doesn't have to conform to your ideals, he just has to follow policy, which he's doing. What's more, he's actually doing good work too, which is often not the case in these adoption situations. Can you please, as a favour to me, put WorldTraveller101 completely out of your thoughts for the period of 1 month? Unwatchlist his page, ignore comments on other pages, do whatever you need to do. You need to give him a chance. Worm TT( talk ) 07:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The kid needs the rigours of a schoolteacher. I can't deny my  instincts from 30 years as a teacher, teacher trainer, and lecturer, but as a personal  favour  to  you  Dave, I'll  accede to  your  request. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it. Worm TT( talk ) 14:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Email
Kudpung, you have a very non-urgent, when you get a chance email.  Go  Phightins  !  16:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Cvlwr back
Hi, I wanted to ask some advice. You did some work on the sockpuppet investigation for this user, and he is back editing as IPs again. He had a couple dozen accounts blocked and went on editing US independent hip-hop articles from Tokyo IP addresses for months and I systematically reported them for months, eventually resulting in a rangeblock. He went away for about six months, but recently he's been editing again; the IP range and editing style is unmistakeable (see recent edits by e.g. 114.150.47.95, 114.164.6.226, 114.164.199.157, and 114.163.207.146). The trouble is, these edits have not been controversial; they've actually been rather helpful, in some cases. This is a known account abuser whose editing privileges have been revoked and whose block-evading tactics were extensively disruptive. But if he's not really doing anything wrong now, should I still pursue further blocks? Do I wait for him to "go rogue" again before reporting? Chubbles (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vigilance. It's still  block  evasion. However, this is obviously  a dynamic IP so  blocking  won't  do  much  good, especially  as they  haven't made any  egregious edits (yet).  But  do  continue to  let us know of any more. BTW, it  would help  if you  could provide links to  the diffs in  future -  it  would save me several mouse clicks and some time with  my  slow Internet  connection. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy
Thanks for this; I have noted and corrected myself on ANI.--Smerus (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I just  like to  keep  things tidy ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)