User talk:Kudpung/Archive Mar 2011

Beat the 'crat congrats
Well, it's not official yet, but on the basis of 84% support I think I can confidently congratulate you on the admin bit which should be coming any minute now.

If you're not a teetotaller then drink this, and if you are then use it to shampoo your hair. If you're a bald teetotaller, well, it's the thought that counts.

In the serious advice section, I will be lazy and copy-paste what I wrote to Boing! said Zebedee, rather than make the effort to write you a custom note. I recommend looking round to see what you can poach to put in User:Kudpung/monobook.js. There's lots of good stuff to go in there that can be really useful to admins, and copying from others who have already found it is a good way to get it. Also, put a handy link to Template:Admin dashboard somewhere, if you haven't already: it's pretty useful. I trust you will look into New admin school, and when you've done so you may or may not find What you won't learn in new admin school helpful: I did, but it's a matter of personal taste. Do ask other admins for advice and instructions. You will, I am sure, soon become a very proficient administrator, but while you are getting there I'm sure we will all be happy to give you help when you can use it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * - and you know from  past experience that you  are going  to be one admin  whom I  will  be continuing  to  pester for advice on policy. Thankyou  James, for all your kind support since you got the mop yourself. Kudpung (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are now an administrator
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you WJB! --Kudpung (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

THANKSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you everyone! - supporters and opposers alike. I'm not sending out thankspam, because there are some of you who don't like it, and it would be too much work to send you all some nice individual words, but I'll catch up with  you  all later. Likewise, please don't feel obliged to spam my talk page with congratulations - a packet of Aspirin and five barnstars from each of you will be quite sufficient, but please not on my talk page.

Now I'm off to scare some kids and burn down a few primary schools. Kudpung (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I've already congratulated you, and now you say you don't want lots of congrats here. (Shrinks back and crawls into hole.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And you're getting my congrats too, whether you want it or not! I have one or two observations, but I'll spare you for now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Congrats, well deserved! Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Terrific. Congratulations!!! You can copy the scripts from my books... Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message 
 * My hearty congrats, and I trust you will enjoy the extra buttons and use them firmly but fairly. Again, best wishes!  Jus  da  fax   11:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratualations (even though Adminship is supposed to be a "demotion", on dit)! Now I can bug you for a favour I've been meaning to ask for, hmmm, about ten months... --Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the admin world! :) I've given you an admin T-shirt and a drink. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 11:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats! I don't think we've had any interaction, but as another who got in on a relatively close margin, I've been there and done that, and I !voted for you.  By the way, junior admin brings coffee for everyone, you know, you can buy the wheeled tank from the last sucker.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And about time too! Alzarian16 (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the madhouse. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Kudpung (and yes after all that I'm not missing out on posting it on your talk page). Use the tools well! CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the promotion -- and on getting through the RfA with your sense of humor intact. You'll do fine. --Orlady (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your new job! Maybe this will be better than some aspirins! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC) (BTW, I took the liberty of removing the outdated icons.)
 * Congratulations - well-deserved. I was extremely pleased to se the nomination, and ven happoer to see the result. SPhilbrick  T  14:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats! &mdash;SW&mdash; chatter 14:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, and well deserved!  --joe deckertalk to me 16:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Heartiest congratulations, well done! – SMasters (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me, as well! See my response to your message on my talk page. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I missed the RfA, but I'm sure you'll use the tools wisely. Good luck! Nev1 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Kudpung! Drmies (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Félicitations, je vous souhaite une belle réussite. Great!!! Best regards --Geneviève (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * a bit late, but congrats!  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 22:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * a dark day for Wikipedia Silent Billy (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Late Congrats! (however, the earliest I could). Good Luck. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 02:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good on ya mate! -- &oelig; &trade; 04:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats. Don't listen to anyone about how great this gig is. I haven't receive any of the genitalia photographs I was promised. May you be more fortunate. Danger (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Aspirin (2247084833).jpg
 * Congratulations; have a good one. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice one, I'll let you know when someone spills water on my floor. – SMasters (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations - I did not spot you had applied. Hope you ordered the large size bucket to go with the mop! Keith D (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job man! Liked working with you on Malvern Water and your conscientious editing style should help you succeed as admin. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats mate, do us proud and don't delete the main page! :) —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 12:34pm • 01:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be the mentor for the students working on Grassroots lobbying
Hi again, Kudpung! I'm currently trying to assign mentors to all the remaining groups in Professor Obar's class. Would you be the mentor for the group of students working on Grassroots lobbying (not yet created)? If you can do it, thanks! If not, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I already have one student on the Abassadors program to mentor already, and because I  now have to  find my  feet as a sysop, I  have a lot  of reading  up  on  stuff to  do  over the next  few weeks and finding  out how the tools work, so  I'm afraid I'll  have to  decline this time round. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. See my reply  to  sage above :) Kudpung (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry about that. Congrats on your adminship, though. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 07:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow
I haven't seen this page in my watchlist in years! Thanks for the fix...I hadn't noticed the error since I had forgotten I even had that page! I've also commented on the talk page. Congratulations on your successful RfA too. Best. Acalamari 14:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Kudpung (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent CSD
The Eliette bisson (sp?) page was just deleted: "13:36, March 4, 2011 Lectonar (talk"

- contribs) deleted "Eliette bisson" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Perhaps I was right after all? Lord Chamberlain, the Renowned (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a WP:BEFORE  and found some sources. Perhaps the deletion  was an edit conflict. We'll  see if the creator refers. Please consider not tagging  quite so  quickly, especially when WP:BLPPROD can be applied. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My slight  error, it  was not  of course a living  person, but  it  could still  have been tagged for 'ref improve' or'noref' unless you  believe it  was really  not  notable. Has lots of refs in  the French  Google. Never mind.--Kudpung (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

NPP
Hey, I saw your recent message on my talk page. I did a little digging and found some fishy stuff. See my recent post at WP:VPT. &mdash;SW&mdash; confer 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also left a message at User talk:Kamkek regarding his prolific patrolling. &mdash;SW&mdash; spout 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been watching Kamkek for a long while. I though  DGG was going  to  have a word. There are a lot  of odd things going  on  tonight, including  my  first  mistake with  the tools (Gaw!). --Kudpung (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS - looks like he did -  twice already. --Kudpung (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you do that?
I was wondering, how is it you can put a custom message on the talk page when some one clicks the edit button? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudpung created User talk:Kudpung/Editnotice. You can do the same with User talk:Jerem43/Editnotice. You can read more about it at Editnotice. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, but you  need WP:account creator or admin  rights to  do  it - unless the rules have been changed recently. --Kudpung (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in your own userspace. You don't need ACC or Admin to do it in your userspace -- I have them on my User and talk pages. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 20:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you can do  it  for your own, but  not  for other pages. --Kudpung (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can edit other people's user talk page edit notices without any advanced rights. Just tested it myself on yours. :) 28bytes (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, whaddayaknow! --Kudpung (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * guys! It worked... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal Grammar School, Guildford
I would like to thank you for your comments on the Royal Grammar School, Guildford article, I thought you might like to know that the article is now a GA :) (bringing the number across the project to 24). As for the info-box I think you already know my opinion on the appearance on the UK school version. Since for this article none of the special features (DfE number, Ofstead, etc) are being used as the school is not state maintained, I would like to keep it with the generic info-box if thats ok? Thank you again for your comments on the article. GlanisTalk 15:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Like you, I'm well aware that  the generic box is far more attractive and I  fully support your rationle. However, the UK schools infobox is currently  undergoing  a lot of new programming, amongst  other things to  incorporate the parameters for independent schools and their inspectorates (ISC, etc, see also: WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines). I  am  not  involved in that  talk  because I  have so  many  plates spinning  at  the moment, but  now would be a very  good time to join the discussion and voice your opinion because there might  not  always be enough players to assure a consensus. One of the problems with  school infoboxes is that  really too  many  different  ones have been created in the past, and where the majority  of school articles are created by  SPA who  don't  read WP:WPSCH/AG, we're trying  to  cut  down on the confusion. We currently  have over 5,000 UK schools using  the wrong  boxes of one kind or another. There should be no  technical difficulties in improving  the aesthetics, but  the programmers may  consider it  to  be low on the priorities just  for the moment. Do keep me up  to  date :) --Kudpung (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect vs Prod for non-notable UK schools
Replied to you on my talk page, thanks for the note. TheGrappler (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Dams in Isan
Kudpung, thanks for the offer and congrats on your RFA. There is always pictures and information on the Sirindhorn Dam, Ubol Ratana Dam and Pak Mun Dam but I think some of those are several hours east of you. I was just recently in Thailand; Lampang, Bangkok, Rayong and Pattaya. Not too many dams there but a neat place.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

F and A
Hi, could you check the blurb on you here, and change if you wish? Tony  (talk)  14:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Opt-in
Hi Kudpung, for Requests for adminship/JaGa, I've created the JS pages to opt-in. Did I miss anything? Thanks, --<font color="#990000">Ja <font color="#000099">Ga <font color="#000000" size="-1">talk 06:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC):It's not  working> I can't remember how to  do  it but  you  should be getting  something  like this http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Kudpung&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia. It's important that  RfA voters can access this. Sorry I  can't  be of more help. --Kudpung (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for granting me the honor and the privilege of being a Reviewer. I will continue to do my best to earn the confidence of the community.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection International
Hi, Kudpung, sorry to bother you. I'm just working through some of the historic unreviewed article backlogs and have come across this article. I get the feeling it's been copied and pasted from a source. A google search revels many other sites with the the same text, but they all cite Wikipedia as a source. Even if it is not a copyright violation then it does seem very 'adverty'. I'm not sure if is blatant enough for CSD though, would you mind taking a look?</S> <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 11:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch the adverty bit <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 11:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Protection international (with a small 'i') was once tagged for CSD and speedy  deleted because the creator had blanked the page. It  was a very  short one-line stub by  the same creator. There are a lot of sites that  mirror Wikipedia content. If those sites with  this text clearly attribute it to  Wikipedia, that  may  be alright, but  you'll have to  check up  on  our rules about  this. It  may  even be a translation  of a French  text from  somewhere, such  as for example http://www.lamediatheque.be/loc/part_protection_international.php?reset=1&secured= but  this would be harder to  prove without  knowing  some of the sentences in  the original. I  agree, even though you  struck it, that  the page does sound spammy - no organisations whether commercial or not  are allowed to  promote themselves through Wikipedia. You'll need to  check  the creator and see if you  consider  there to  be a WP:COI. A quick random look  at  the refs  show me that  they  may  be what  I  call  'scraping  the barrel for notability'. Many  of the refs seem to  be used by  the article to  justify Protection International's raison d'être, but  such  refs do  not assert notability. The user name Quentinnoirfalisse is a unique coined word but  it  shows up  a couple of times in  Google. A Quentin Falisse has a page on  a social networking  site at http://fr.netlog.com/Quentin0u/shouts, also  Belgian, and also  a black (noir) coloured site -  this may just be conincidences even though  the name is again not  common.
 * Ref #17 is an entirely personal blog  written  by  a Clette Braekmaref http://blog.lesoir.be/colette-braeckman/2009/06/24/affaire-maheshe-une-parodie-de-justice-a-bukavu/ on  WordPress sofware hosted by  lesoir.be, a Belgian  news website owned by   Rossel & Cie. S.A. - if lesoir is a mainstream  newspaper, then the blog  may  be subject  to  the newspaper's editorial controls, but  it  doesn't  look  like it. Rossel & Cie. S.A. seems  to  be a a holding company  for a group of news medias including  print.
 * Ref #6 is a Belgian parliamentary bill about NGO's, but  is not  specifically  about Protection International
 * Ref #7 Is a German parliamentary  bill  concerning  the protection  of NGOs; It  mentions nothing  specific about  Protection  International.
 * Ref #8 Is a Spanish parliamentary  bill  concerning  the protection  of NGOs; It  mentions nothing  specific about  Protection  International, and the cited page numbers don't  gel.
 * Ref #9 Is a Spanish parliamentary  bill  but  according  to  Firefox it  is a risky  website.
 * Ref #11 http://www.reliefweb.int/ocha_ol/pub/idp_gp/idp.html is another United Nations paper on which  Protection  Interbational  bases it  philosophy


 * Nevertheless, this NGO seems to  be important and may  well  be notable -  it  appears to  have the support of the EU. The remaining refs need to  be checked to  see if they  are WP:RS third party  articles about Protection  Internationale. Articles like this are often written in  good faith, but  spam  is spam. If you  have time, do  some more research and let me know how you  get  on - we might  both  learn something. --Kudpung (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudpung, I will re-visit the article soon <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 19:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: This thread has been copied to Talk:Protection International. Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Karina Longworth
Hi Kudpung, did you see my final message on the page Talk:Karina Longworth? I want to thank you very much your help.--Foobarnix (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've asked Tony to take another look at this. I wouldn't worry about immediate deletion though - let that come from an uninvolved editor if it does. --Kudpung (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. The reason I have several times asked that it be sent "to WP:AfD where the community will decide." as you suggested on 08:59, 8 March 2011 is that I want the issue settled one way or the other so that I can move on. I have done some research and I have noticed that pages that attract certain kinds of attention are almost always deleted sooner or later.  I will be very nervous until either I can get the tags removed from the article, or it is deleted or kept by consensus.  I cannot spend any more time fighting for this one page. Let the chips fall where they may.  Thanks for everything--Foobarnix (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All of us, including admins, have had pages deleted in the past. It's no big issue - we learn from the experience, improve our knowledge of policies, and move on to create better pages about other subjects, edit and improve other articles, or join in with bringing articles up to Good Article status. Tony and I have now both taken an in-depth look at Karina and neither of us is in a hurry to remove the tags, because someone else might come along and find just the right references. We also therefore feel there's no point in forcing the the article through the AfD process just to get a ruling on it. The concern you have shown for the Karina article convinces me that you'll find some other articles to work on, and if at any time you need any suggestions, help, or advice, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi I had seen this. That's OK with me.--Foobarnix (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

For you.....
Thank you Tofu! The kind words mean much, much more to me than the barnstar itself. I hope this has nothing to do with the barnstar issues that were raised on my RfA and nearly caused me to fail ;) . Take care, and if you need any help at all with anything, you know whose door you can knock. --Kudpung (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Thanks, and other?
Congratulations on the RfA. Now you can be looked at with more scrutiny! Sarcasm aside, you've done a great job. Also, thanks for participating in my RfA, I actually have to say you brought up some points that have affected my editing. I also found your biography most interesting. These three random points aside, I would like to congratulate you, and thank you for your involvement. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those kind words. Mine was the first  'oppose' vote on  your RfA, and actually I had every intention of moving that !vote at least  to  'neutral' but  by  the time I  got round to it, it was all  over. The main thing  is you  passed, and you  are doing a grand job -  I  hope I'll be able to  meet the communities expectations  too :) Kudpung (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So far so good in my book! :) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My first and probably last photo I add to Wikipedia :|
Kudpung! I have managed to make a mess :/ The photo I tried to upload for some reason is'nt showing up on the article...instead when I click the old image for some reason my image comes up....what did I do wrong...? Oh-- the Article is... Casey Novak.... Im like stressing here :S -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into it... --Kudpung (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's this photo: File:Casey Novak - SVU.jpg in the infobox, which you uploaded. Isn't that what you wanted? --Kudpung (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you click that picture your talking about, you'll then see another picture, which was the one I uploaded. Then you will notice how I basically have messed this up :/ -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudpung!!! Its working!!!!! :)) Thank You SOOO Much for your Help! :)!! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 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) 01:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:


 * 1) Add  to the articles' talk pages.  (The other parameters of the WAP assignment template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
 * 2) If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: WikiProject United States Public Policy
 * 3) Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself.  The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well.  The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them The WikiPen if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I Need Advice
Hey Kudpung, I was wondering if you could maybe give me some advice on how to distribute the genres on a particular album? I have found sources stating that an album (Passages (Frank Gambale album)) is contemporary jazz/smooth jazz, jazz fusion. Yet, the person I'm arguing with does not want me to put contemporary jazz. Instead he wants instrumental rock to be in the forefront; and he doesn't even have a valid source stating that the album is instrumental rock. The thing is that this album is only about: 50% contemporary/smooth jazz, 25% jazz fusion, and 25% instrumental rock. So what should I do? Thanks.

My sources for the album being contemporary jazz/smooth jazz: http://www.allmusic.com/album/passages-r203663 http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/FrankGambale6 http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/FrankGambale14 Sprecher (talk)
 * I would suggest that you explain your problem again on the article talk  page in much that same way as you  have explained it  here, with  the percentages. Reliable sources are important and will trump  anything  that  is not  sourced. Unsourced claims are either point of view or original research, neither of which  is acceptable. 'Jazz' is an extremely  broad term and as a 'jazz' musician and former jazz journalist I often found it  hard to  clearly  define the sub-genres. As Wikipedia articles, track listings annoy  me, because I  feel  editors should go the extra mile to  include some interesting  reading  rather than just  a list. This may  be an opportunity  to  expand the list  with  short descriptions of the individual tracks with  their genres. In  the infobox, perhaps it  could be acceptable by  all  parties to  say 'Mainly jazz. (Mixed genres)', or something  similar. Do  take note however of the most  recent message on your talk  page -  it  appears that  the other editor(s) is/are open to  compromise. Please also  remember to  sign  your posts.
 * I hope this helps. Kudpung (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, well thanks for replying. Feel free to interfere any time.  For some reason this guy really wants instrumental rock on this album; yet he has no good source stating that Passages has instrumental rock.  Personally, I think he may be a little bias.  Listen to the whole album yourself and tell us what you think: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/FrankGambale6. Me and him are discussing this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mac_Dreamstate.  Thanks!!!  Sprecher (talk)


 * Yo Kudpung, thanks for saving the day!!! Sprecher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC).


 * From the message I left on Sprecher's talk page, it got me thinking: would you, Kudpung, happen to know where I can find the archived discussion of the 2008 music genre debate on Wikipedia? I used to know where it was back then, but its since probably wound up deep within the depths of... somewhere. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, can't help. However, if you  can remember any  of the phrases that  were in it, try  Google - Google is sometimes a better search  engine that the Wiki's built-in  one. Kudpung (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. I managed to find it buried within the discussion archives of Template:Infobox album, which eventually led me here, all the way to here. Whew! It'll take some time for me to read all that, but I'm interested to know how they eventually came to a consensus on keeping it. I was a pretty strong advocate of keeping the genres on the infobox back then (even though I didn't participate in the discussion), but now I find myself re-thinking that stance. Oh well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Neil Falcone
Could you take a look at this article (if it's still there) as well as the potential shenanigans on the talk page? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Golly! Interesting. It'll take me a while to untangle it all. I'll start by having a peek at the deleted version. I'm not a CU but I have one or two tricks up my sleeve. I'll let you know how I get on. --Kudpung (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what I think:


 * withmanyshades is a Google blogspot that anyone can create and populate. Not RS.
 * macabrecadaver is membership only access. I don;t regard sites like this with much RS.
 * lightningflashmag does not assert any kind of notability
 * The deleted version is far too similar for there to be any coincidence. It was created by Cmagha.
 * Cmm388 is a new account. First edit was a minor edit to an unconnected page. Second edit was the creation.
 * Cindamuse is a very trusted editor.
 * 128.84.156.32 is a new IP user, first and only edits are to contribute to Facon. Two basically blank edits. Could be someone who genuinely forgot to login. Could be Dsker5
 * Ajh256 New user. 13 edits since 5 Mar. Has an interest in Cornell. Rather knowledgeable about policies, editing, and processes for a new user. Very similar to Cmm388 and Cmagha.
 * Dsker5 new account created  6 Mar. Could be 128.84.156.32
 * Too many meaty fish in this pond with the same DNA. I find the 'co-worker' defence in the previous ISP highly suspicious. I realise that the CUs were acting in GF, but more recently CUs now tend to block more often on circumstantial evidence (Eg.: User talk:Tofutwitch11, whom I know not to be a sockmaster - nevertheless I have the greatest respect for Beeblebrox). I suggest starting a new SPI based on the new evidence, calling on the old one. And it looks to me as if the article is a valid CSD. Could be sent to Afd though. The effort should be to not  turn its talk page into a pseudo Afd. Kudpung (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The admin who declined the speedy immediately put it up for AfD at Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone (2nd nomination). I'm going to start an SPI on Cmagha. Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Help. I started Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha, but it doesn't show up on Sockpuppet investigations. Did I do something wrong, or does an adminstrator add it there? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been away from my macine for 2 hours. Don't worry, it's there. You'll have to wait awhile now for comments to come in. Ill be watching it. BTW, the admin who declined the CSD and sent it to AfD is  one of the best we've got for BLP issues. Kudpung (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't ask for a CheckUser, but apparently they ran one and the conclusion is that they are all likely "friends and associates" of Cmagha and none of them are likely to actually be him. Give his past MO, that's quite plausible too, but like you, I didn't buy the story from the original SPI. Simply co-workers in the same government agency who all happen to be wildly interested in the fate of articles about Cmagha's fraternity and its members, and who helpfully edited for him while he was blocked? Ah well, I now await the arrival of the flashmob at the AfD. ;-) And yes, I do have your talk page on permanent watch, so need for talkbacks. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Time for the CUs to get their WP:DUCKS in a row. Kudpung (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how the time flies - I've spent four hours going through all this. See my comments at the SPI. Kudpung (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic duo
User:123456789cheese‎ and User:Roberthaha seem to be vandalizing in tandem. What's your take? The Interior (Talk) 13:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just deleted something from Cheese. I'll go back and have another look at them both.--Kudpung (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice observation. Pretty obviously vandalism-only accounts by the same user. I won't block them just yet - it may just incite them to make more accounts. I would suggest you keep their talk pages and contributed articles on your watchlist and wait for their next move. Then you can either file a SPI, or let me know directly. --Kudpung (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that wasn't coincidental. Chopin does look like Hitler in that photo though.  cheers,  The Interior  (Talk) 13:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Empty votes
Any chance you could swiftly move this over to WT:RFA - I'm sure you understand why. I'm trying to keep the RfA on-topic. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an edit conflict - my connection is much slower than yours. Point taken, however. I'll copy it to the discussion. The problem is that the vast majority of RfA !voters - and candidates! - don't even know about the existence of WT:RFA. I'll have a chat with you later about  WT:RFA in general, because I would like your feedback on one or two aspects of the talk page itself. --Kudpung (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep yep, all good, thanks very much.
 * I appreciate "copied" - RfA, can't be too careful. But maybe you could also strike it on the RfA, and put moved to WT:RFA . Maybe. I'm just doing my best to keep RfA sane. (yes, yes, I know...it is indeed like trying to plait fog).
 * Talk to me any time, sure. Also and, more directly, via IRC.
 * Cheers and beers,  Chzz  ► 03:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With the the greatest of respect Chzz, because I know that  you, like me, are deeply concerned about the farce that the RfA process has become, I'm going to leave it there unstruck this time. But I will remember your solution to unrelated chat on RfAs and I'll tend to use it too in the future. There is also of course, the possiblity of using the talk page of the individual RfA, but in my experience, hardly anyone looks at it. What should we do about  new kids on the block who talk in a difficult-for-the-most-people-to-understand prose? I'm all for new impetus, but much more of this, and I'll abandon RfA as a focus of my interest. Kudpung (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh Gods, I agree with you so much. Anything longer than 140 characters (or whatever the twits can handle is tl;dr. And RfA is so broken, yes, I quite understand anyone who abandons it as beyond repair. We need to discuss this more. Mostly, we agree.  Chzz  ► 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose Jimbo's statement today clinches it once and for all. I  propose putting  an end to  the cyclic perennial talk  at  WT:RfA and getting  something  done about  it. My  idea would be to  take all  the threads on  that  page since 1 Jan 2010 and organising  them  into  separate talk  pages per improvement  topic, then running  an RfC on  each  of them. Doable? Kudpung (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't know the best approach - and not for lack of thinking. I've been wondering how we could "fix" things for years. Some people say RfA is the worst form of selection except for all the others (paraphrasing Churchill) - and they have a point.
 * I understand what you mean about the talk archives - and maybe something could be gleaned from them, to form proposals that could be accepted. I just don't know - because so many times, so many things have been suggested...and they've never got consensus.
 * Any suggestion of the 'usual' types - unbundling, or 'trainee admin', or changing it to a closed vote, or whatever - meet fairly stiff reasoned opposition and, with some justification, people just point to WP:PEREN or the archived discussions. A lot of people rub their chins and say "yes, in theory, BUT...".
 * The ideas I spoke about in email - making it much less of a "big deal" - is what I personally think should happen - but I doubt it ever will happen.
 * I'm sorry that's all so negative, but...well, it is an enormous problem, it is one I've given considerable thought to, and I haven't really come up with any solution that I think could work (or at least, that could pass consensus).
 * Maybe some changes could though. For example, recently I have been following the discussion Village pump (proposals). Whilst I don't think that proposal will work, what I do see is, quite a lot of support for some (long) time limitation, but with no enforced break period - ie, admins who became admins more than 6 years ago would have to re-apply via RfA. I'm not, currently, sure how many that would affect - and I am trying to get stats on that. I asked on User talk:WereSpielChequers, but if xe doesn't have the info I guess nobody does - so I'll probably be trying to gather that for myself.
 * I believe Commons has been removing inactive SysOps recently, but got off to a rather poor start when they removed Jimbo (as one of the first changes).
 * Still - it may be worth looking over the archives, and seeing if there was any possible ideas. It'll be quite a big undertaking to get anything coherent though. I'm not sure if you've been following WP:PCRFC - but I suspect, if anything, it'd be even more difficult than that one.  Chzz  ► 03:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I follow all  those discussions but  I  have not  !voted on some because they  are TLDR and with  my  slow connection  I  can't  get  a word in  edgeways because of edit conflicts. I think there could be something  to  be gained by parsing  the major topics on  WT:RfA over the last  12 months or so and see where I  get. Much  of the reason  why  the threads are perennial is because new threads get  started and the interest  in  the previous ones gets  clouded. I'll start by creating a sub user page to  do  this, so  you'll be able to  check  it  out  from  time to  time. It will  be a long  job because I don't  think it's possible to  create a script  that  will  help. Kudpung (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's going to be an uphill battle. If there's anything I've learned lately, it's that it is nearly impossible to get a consensus on anything when hundreds of people are involved.  It would be difficult to get an agreement that "the sky is blue" around here if you posted it somewhere where hundreds of people could see it.  My proposal would be to create a process whereby a committee is chosen/elected, and we task that committee of 10 or so editors to come to a consensus on how to fix RfA.  Then, whatever they end up deciding is what we are bound to do.  Otherwise, a meaningful change will never be made because someone will always find a reason to oppose it, and then their friends will jump on the bandwagon and oppose it, etc. etc. etc.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> converse 14:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny you  should say  that - it's exactly  what  I  said to  CT Cooper when we were discussing  getting  a consensus on  the notability  ruling  for schools. Getting  a consensus for the BLPPROD was my  major lesson  in  getting  things done at  Wikipedia. Problem is, you'd have to  get  a consensus to  agree to  have a comittee, and then have voting  for the members of the committee and then... Kudpung (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also what I've been suggesting for the PC debate - after all the existing reams of discussion, I think it makes sense to appoint a small committee to come up with clear and specific proposals based on evaluation of consensus, which can then be put to the community in a managable short way. I thought of 12, which we use in UK juries. My rough draft thoughts were here on 3 March. At present, the debate is just rambling; I think - eventually - something like that will be the way ahead. Same could well be true of RfA change, and N-Schools.  Chzz  ► 17:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

From my answer to  Q4 at  my  RfA: ''I think many of us learned a lot through that process that our method of insisting on consensus by everyone for every little detail makes a process extremely long, and drawn out. Some editors actually resigned from Wikipedia from fatigue on that project. I believe that for site-wide operations like this, we ought to lend more confidence in sub-comittees or work groups with defined members who can reach their own consensus and report back to a steering committee. I am not suggesting that we overturn or modify the Wikipedia fundamental philosophy of consensus, but a show of hands occasionally would get things done faster. One of the main problems with the BLPPROD programme was that new people would come in on it at very late stages and make some very aggressive demands for things to be reviewed all over again, and this began to be quite a problem.'' Kudpung (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that one of the problems with wt:RFA proposals is that people will hijack each thread at wt:RFA to revive their own hobbyhorses. So any reform package that involves changing policy needs to be structured to contain multiple threads at the same time - I'd suggest an RFC with separate transcluded RFCs for each option of change. Those that are at peren need a section that explains the previous reasons for rejection and ideally makes a case that the past reasons for rejection no longer apply or can be mitigated. Getting consensus for change is difficult, and yes people will come in at any stage, but we did get consensus for BLPprod.  An easier and possibly earlier phase for RFA reform is to float some of the ideas that don't need consensus to enact. I may jot a few ideas down at user:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  23:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:94.0.216.221
Hi, I'm curious as to why you recently served 94.0.216.221 with a when he had made no edits (other than one to his own user talk page) after I had served a  over fifteen hours earlier. His user talk page edit was entirely within that permitted by WP:BLANKING; this, together with his immediate cessation of vandalism, demonstrates that he had read at least one of the three warning messages. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is no ruling that the warnings have to be served incrementally, but you're right that serving them close together is not always useful. I had visited all the pages they vandalised and the diffs. This is clearly a vandalism-only user, and I had in fact considered an immediate block. Instead, I issued a final warning. They've seen the warnings, but by blanking the page other vandalism/RCP patrollers might not check the history before warning again and there comes a time when people do have to be blocked. This might be a shared IP, and it also serves to inform others who may be using the same connection or machine. Keep up the good work on railways. If you need photos of stations in Worcestershire, Herefordshire, or Birmingham to illustrate pages, don't hesitate to let me know. --Kudpung (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When you think  about  it, it's interesting  that  someone would only  want  to  vandalise railway  stations. railways is not  a topic that  would generally  attract  much  vandalism. I  have a sneaking  suspicion  that  this is a goodhand/badhand account. Kudpung (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply
I Took The Description Form TheWikiManager. Hes A Blocked Sock Puppet So Shouldn't Mind. User:UserBoxen 11:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps it  would be a good idea if you  were to  edit  out  all  the stuff  that  doesn't  apply to you. It  might  give the wrong impression if you  leave it in. If you're not  sure how to  do  these edits, don't  hesitate to  ask  for  my  help. --Kudpung (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

hi ! nice to meet you
why deleted the article MIU (Movement for Israeli Urbanism) ? ....... i think you shouldn't deleted the article Mastic ice cream (turkish ice cream + arabic ice cream). פארוק (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't delete either of  them. I've tagged MIU (Movement for Israeli Urbanism) for attention, and the reasons are on the page. Mastic ice cream was deleted by another admin because it  was a duplication  of an existing  article. --Kudpung (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * MIU (Movement for Israeli Urbanism) is not a commercial company but only non-profit institution.

Mastic ice cream is a total name of Turkis ice cream (Dondurma) + Arabic ice cream (Booza) becouse there both have the Mastic spice inside.

in israel we call this Mastic ice cream to both of these ice creams. פארוק (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

NPP
Hello, Marking as "Patrolled" means that, a page does not have any special problems and does not meet Deletion Critia, and I checked those pages, I still think those have not any problems, they are just stub or orphan. About tagging, tagging process is not very important as the other editors will tag it, on the other hand, the editor may fill the article so tagging tags like stub and orphan should not be done in the first minutes but patrolling should. I appriciate your help and your advice, anything I did wrong? Thanks, Nima Nima1024 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Nima. Patrolling is quite a bit more than that. Apart from  the ones that  need careful tagging for one of the methods of deletion, there are dozens of reasons for applying  tags for other issues. This is important  because all  those tags automatically  list  those pages on  cats and backlogs that  editors are working on. Chances are actually  very  high that  if you  don't  tag a page for attention, it  will  go  unnoticed. For example, any  page that  is unreferenced must  be tagged for referencing. You  need to  read up  on:
 * Template messages/Sources of articles - this will  give you  an overview of the main  templates we use at  NPP. You  can add these tags immediately, but  try  to  recognise articles that  someone is obviously still  working  on.
 * WP:CSD - This will explain  in  detail all  the criteria for deletion. Remember that  you  must  also  put  a notification  template on  the creator's talk  page too. remember also  that  except  for blatant nonsense and attack  pages, it's best  to  give a creator some time to  finish  their article before tagging  it.
 * WP:NPP - This is very important because it  lists all  the other tasks that  patrollers should be doing. Patrolling  is a lot  more than just  looking at an article, clicking  a mouse, and moving  on  to  the next  one.
 * If you  want  to  make things a lot easier, you  can install WP:Twinkle. It  automates most  of the tasks, provides a drop-down menu for tagging  and a drop-down menu for deleting. Speed of tagging  is absolutely  not  important - figure that  I  spend up  to  five minutes on  each  new page that I tag. I  hope all  this helps, keep  asking  if you're not  sure about  anything. --Kudpung (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, I also use Twinkle for tagging, so you say that I must tag the pages when I patroll them? Thanks for the info. Nima1024 (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not every  page needs a tag of some kind, but from  my  own  experience of new page patrolling, the majority  do need a tag of some sort  even if  they  don't  need to  be deleted - so you  must  be very  careful  not  to  allow problem pages through without  tagging  them.  Do  read the pages I  linked to  in the message above - most of the answers are in there, but  do  ask again  if you're not  sure about  anything, and do  read about the tasks that  patrollers should be doing.  Kudpung (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:UserBoxen
Well spotted. I've been watching him but hadn't made the connection - I couldn't remember who else it was who capitalized every word. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to keep  watching  too. I'm still  learning how this SPI  stuff works - do  they  put an IP  block on  a case like this? --Kudpung (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure - I think there's an autoblock on the IP, but I don't think it lasts long -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

New pages
hello,

thank you for your message on my talk page! Reading the guideline WP:NPP, it helped me to increase my knowledge about new page patrolling (as you can see I am not a New Page Patroller, but I would like to be some day). I might made a mistake, using the wrong tag, but unfortunately I am not able to see the article again and therefore can not answer to this. Regards!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hey I am a newbie here. I added bit details to Gujar Khan page under Base School System which is now displaying immediate deletion tag. What to do to recover and maintain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mascot99 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, the Base School System page is an advertisment for a school, and the article does not  state why  the school is important  enough  for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not  a directory for listing schools. Please read the requirements for school articles at  WP:WPSCH/AG, and please see how to assert notability  at  WP:NOTABILITY, and how to include references at  WP:RS. If  you  think  you  can meet those conditions, please put  the  template on  the page as described in  the instructions, with  your comments on  the article talk  page. --Kudpung (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A7 doesn't apply to schools. Feezo <FONT SIZE="-2">(Talk)</FONT> 10:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Feezo. You can trout me for this one, because I do know it of course (I said it to someone yesterday), and I'm supppposed to be an expert on schools policy! --Kudpung (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Imsogb
(if the link above is red then disregard this) :) I tagged the page with some very gentle tags suggesting the page needs alot of work. The author then deleted the tags and proceeded to do no more work on the page. I believe it is probably a great candidate for speedy but I wanted him to see the consensus of other editors. Either way the article is pretty poor and should be removed one way or another. Golgofrinchian  (talk)  14:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are quite right to err on the side of caution. I could have deleted it immediately, but like you I want the author to understand we don't tolerate spam, so I've left it up to another admin to delete. As far as I can see you never fully completed the AfD process anyway. You certainly did the right thing by tagging it, and don't hesitate to ask me if you're not sure what tags to use.--Kudpung (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! Yea I am a new Huggle user and I try to be as gentle as I can. I thought I did the AfD correctly. Please feel free to fix it so I can see what I did wrong. I really do want to learn and I usually emulate what I have seen other users do. Thanks again  Golgofrinchian  (talk)  14:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't use Huggle because it doesn't work on Mac. I guess it's OK for vandal fighting, but for New Page Patrol I think Twinkle is better and safer - there are so many other tasks that have to be done to new pages, and Twinkle does it all except perhaps for adding stub templates. It does the whole process for making AfD - if it doesn't, check out the Twinkle page or the Village Pump (tech), for possible bug reports. --Kudpung (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Imsogb
I shall come back with more relevant and solid stuff. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp651 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD question
Hello Kudpung. I thought I would take you up on your offer for advice regarding CSD criteria. A question: I've seen a number of "articles" that are basically a person's résumé. Here is one recent example. What CSD criteria, if any, would you suggest be applied to such pages? A7? G11? I notice the other patrollers have generally not been tagging these for speedy deletion, so I thought I would solicit your opinion. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We should add an uncatagorized CSD criteria for all those sticky ones. That's how some of the iffy articles make it through, they don't fall under and CSD category..but they really shouldn't be there. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 20:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a very dangerous path to tread. The key strength of CSD is that it is very strictly only for certain categories that have been decided in advance by the community as being uncontroversial. If we should extend that to include "or any other reason you please" we'll have all kinds of things that people (and admins) think should be speedy deleted but which would not be uncontroversial. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely understand that -- and what I said had a hint of saracasim (though not able to be picked up via text). It's just frustrating when you know it shouldn't be there, but can't decide why. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 23:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah :-) And yes, I do know the frustration when you see some complete b....... that just doesn't fit a speedy category -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly agree that it's frustrating that we do not have CSD criteria to cover every case and that utter bs sometimes has to fester for seven days while the community decides on its fate. Problem is, while Wikipedia has a largely inclusionist philosophy, it's actually run by what appears to be a slight majority of deletionists. I'm not in either camp, but I do find it an affront to my intelligence to be expected to copyedit and find refs for a page that was posted by an SPA for purely promotional purposes.
 * As for Alex Chu Executive Creative Director, the answer (for me at l east) is clear: (person/org + advertising) plus a  (Don't warite about yourself) tag for good measure; there's no doubt whatsoever that posting a CV is bltant promotion. All tags serve two distinct purposes: they alert regular editors and admins that an article needs attention, and they inform creators and 'non regular' editors what they are doing wrong or what needs improving. It is important that  new page patrollers begin to understand that  there is a lot more than just looking at a page and slapping a tag on it in fifteen seconds. It generally takes five minutes to check the edit history to locate the author,  check the creator's history for previous warnings and vandalism to other pages, incorrectly created pages, and sockpuppetry,  and stub tags added and the project banner added to the talk page. I'm gradually loosing my patience with the Hugglers who think they can accurately patrol pages at a rate of six a minute. Kudpung (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudpung; that's useful information. 28bytes (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, it looks like you notified the page's creator about tagging it for deletion; however, I don't see your name in the page's edit history (it's never been tagged for deletion). Am I missing something here? Airplaneman  ✈  03:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What happened was that this creator had also created another unusual article the same day, that  was rather  unconnected with  his CV. I started hunting around for possible sockpupetry and then the Wikipedia server went  off line and I was called away  to  RL and left the intervention unfinished. Kudpung (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I misread your tag. Since Alex Chu Creative Director and Alex Chu Executive Creative Director are identical, and CSD reasoning seems obvious, I have deleted the latter page using the same reason as the one for its sister page. A source search also doesn't bring anything substantial so A7 could have applied as well. Airplaneman   ✈  03:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the page immediately  myself because I  wanted the creator to reflect  on  the situation. Actually, if you  look  at  the page source you  will  see that  my CSD template is there as I  had in  fact  placed it  manually (Twinkle can't do multiple criteria, and maybe should be modified to  do  so). Perhaps you  could take a look  and tell me why  it was not  displaying and why  the edit  wasn't  recorded in  the history -  perhaps there is a coding  element  missing, ior perhaps it  was the problem with  Wikipedia server. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that while Twinkle usually applies the article tags then notifies the article creator, occasionally sometimes the second task will complete before the first (at least going by the order in my contribution history). Could be that the creator notification completed but the article tagging timed out. 28bytes (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This was definitely a manual opoeration that  I made, because there is no  (TW) in  the es of the user talk  page edit summary. I  suppose the failure of the CSD template I manually  applied  on  the article could have been due to time out, because the template code is there in  the page source. There are lots of bugs with  twinkle at  the moment, and lots of server problems. Kudpung (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Was the edit not recorded in the Alex Chu Creative Director or the Alex Chu Executive Creative Director article? For the Alex Chu Creative Director article, I can see your edit in the history. For the Alex Chu Executive Creative Director article, I neither see your edit nor any CSD template code in the history of the article. Maybe your session conveniently timed out when the server went offline? (I wrote this reply without seeing your reply directly above this, which basically says what I said :D). There are indeed many TW bugs and server problems in general. I've switched back to monobook for the time being because so many of my scripts were breaking for no apparent reason in Vector (they work fine in monobook). Airplaneman   ✈  04:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, let's not worry  too  much  about  Alex Chu now, what's been done has been done until he pops up  again. I have always used Monobook - I've experimented with Vector, and like you, many  of my  js scripts just  don't  work in  it. I'll never understand why  it  was chosen as the default  skin. It even looks horrible.Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a terrible mentoree.
Kudpung, I am so sorry for being absolutely non-responsive during our talks and talkbacks. I am a terrible communicator and really need to step up and get in better touch with the wiki community. I would explain why I have been so absent on wiki, and online all together, but I don't feel comfortable discussing certain things on talk pages. Do you have an email address where I can explain things more clearly? I'm trying to get in touch with my professor and discuss these things with her and figure out what is expected of me and what I can reasonably do. Once I get your email address this will be less cryptic, I'm sorry for any stress or confusion I've caused and I really do appreciate the help you've already provided me. Hope to hear from you soon, Ohheyheidi (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries; Just  click  on  the 'user' tab and you will  see the 'email  this user' link. You are most welcome to  send me an email  through  the Wikipedia email  system. Anonyity  is guaranteed. Looking  forward to  hearing  from  you -  don't  be afraid to  discuss anything  you  like with me. --Kudpung (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: User:Pkavinda123
Yeah I blocked based on the user's edits, unaware of any socking issue, but was made aware of the socking by MuZemike within minutes of my blocking. Feel free to tweak my block, as always, if you believe it's needed by the specific of the case. Thanks again for letting me know.  Snowolf How can I help? 19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessary, it  was only  an FYI - blocked is blocked -  that's the main  thing. --Kudpung (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 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) 01:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Task force
Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've spent the last couple of days parsing all the relevant threads in the talk archives over the last 12 months, to separate them from the background noises, and to identify the people who need to be rounded up. I can only do this manually - should be finished today. --Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll mail you the results when they are ready - you'll probably wish to  suggest  some changes. --Kudpung (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your request to stay notified of current developments, see Eureka! We're all morons. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it  almost  as soon  as you  had posted it. I fear a lot of it will fall on  deaf ears. I've said before that  WT:Talk  is little more than a virtual pub, and people are already  discussing the  things that really  ought to be treated  seriously at select committee level. It'll continue like this  for  a few more days, with perhaps a bit more discussion over Penguin's RfA, then there will be a week-long hiatus on the page like there had been before the Strat  RfA. Finally, it will get archived until until the  perennial sessions start all over again. Time to get the show on the road. I count about 12 people who are interested, but even they are not all sure if they can dedicate the time (or want to). --Kudpung (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Worcestershire sauce
Why on earth do we need a pronunciation guide for the word "sauce"? I'm familiar with the use of prounciation notes, and normally only unfamiliar words are included in the pronunciation note. Surely nobody needs it explained how to pronounce "sauce"? 109.154.68.162 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be familiar with the pronunciation used in your particular language zone, and not need a guide. A vast number of visitors to the Wikipedia are high level English language users but not native speakers. In the case of Worcestershire sauce, alone the AE/BE difference already makes it sound an entirely different word in each regional variation. We cannot remove established features from the encyclopedia just because one reader out of many millions does not like them. You will garner broader response to enquiries of this kind if you take up the issues either on the article talk page, or at WP:EAR. --Kudpung (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Again Vandalism on my user page Help me please
Dear Brother Kudpung,

I am very disappointed due to this act of vandalism on my user page, after the help of User:JamesBWatsonyour who semi protected my user page I was very happy and satisfied that now I can write and edit Wikipedia articles but few days ago some one vandalized my user page again I want to report this user User:Sajjadhunzai to be deleted as he insulted me by typing given below comments on my main user page due to these comments few people in my social circle insulted me I was never encourage to write for Wikipedia but still i keep writing for Wiki but these comments honestly made me grief, I am too sad honestly therefore I would like to request with you to BLOCK this user because if he can leave these comments on my main user page he can do this with everyone and please Full protect my page please so I and Admins only can edit my user page because I love this place and I am Wikipedia addicted now he insulted and disrespect me with given below comments which he wrote on my user name kindly tell me IS it good?

below is the story of RETARDED PERSON, please join me in saying a BIG LOL :)))

THIS GUY NEEDS SOME SERIOUS HELP, HIS ENGLISH IS TOO HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND, BUT GOOD SCRIPT TO MAKE ME LAUGH AFTER WORK

I will be very helpful to you if you help me to protect my own page which is my property and honestly help me in this major concern because it’s not only my insult but also insult of all wikipedians.

Yours Truly,

Wikipedian --Faizanalivarya (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay in  replying. If you  a re still  experiencing  problems, please either ask James again, or post  an official  request  through Requests for page protection. --Kudpung (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung for alerting me to this. Actually, I received a copy of the same message, and responded to it, but there's no harm in telling me anyway, to make sure. (While I'm here, I will also mention the message below from user Swarm. I can fully see why you say it means more to you than any other compliment you have ever received. It's a sort of prodigal son situation: the one who was against you and has come to support you is worth more than ones who never left you. If even an opposer now says you are doing a good job then you really must be doing OK. It also goes some way towards confirming the faith I and other supporters had in you all along.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin's Barnstar
You're free to replace the message with: "I opposed your RfA for some pile-on bullshit reason and in hindsight I was completely wrong. Thanks for being a great admin. <font face='Old English Text MT'>Swarm  <font face='old english text mt'>X 19:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)" Take your pick. Best regards,  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That is an extraodinarily magnanimous statement Swarm, and means more to me than any other compliment I have ever received for my work on Wikipedia. I don't know how to thank you enough for it. BTW: I already have you shortlisted for collaboration on an upcoming project concerning RfA - talk to you later. --Kudpung (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WP UK Education idea
Hi you have done a lot of stuff relating to education in the UK I was wondering what you thought of a Sub project About UK Education as there are many articles which need creating/updating and ones that are not covered by existing projects. If you think it's a good idea write back to me and we can discus it Mark999 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. A good suggestion. However, this has been discussed recently already and it was found that because there is so little involvement from the over 300 members of the school project, it would be better to leave things as they are. A majority of the four or five genuinely active members on the project are in fact from the UK, along with also one very active user from the UK who is not listed as a project member. Your input on UK schools is nevertheless highly appreciated, and don't hesitate to post questions on either the project talk page, or directly on mine, or on user talk:CT Cooper's talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we could make a good go of it, even if we start with a few users, I have noticed a few users that have done work on multiple articles that are not currently members of a project and have contacted them, I would put a lot of work in setting it up and assessing articles and we can get a standard for all articles and try to sort out articles as even despite all are effort it is still a massive task, I've done a lot of work on Bristol articles, creating them making sure there is a list and making sure they all have the correct Infobox, I will try and start it and just work at getting it straight and also trying to work with the other Wikiprojects covering Education. By the way I fixed the signing issue and the end of posts, it is because I had ticked a box in my settings that stopped it linking to my profile! Mark999 (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your enthusiasm is to be congratulated but  I'm  still not  optimistic about  getting  a UK task  force together -  those who  are already  working  in  this domain, such  as Kanguole for example, and myself, are probably already doing as much  as they  can. Nevertheless you  have my  support and don't  hesitate  to  ask  me for  any  help  or advice. However, I  would certainly  recommend that  you read all  the WP:WPSCH pages carefully  and single out UK schools listed as needing  urgent  attention,  and closely  following  the bot  report of problem pages and proposed deletions. There may  also  be some UK schools among  the potential  GA candidates - I'd certainly  lend a hand there too. Kudpung (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Education_in_the_United_Kingdom I will prove it can work Mark999 (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

" " Mark999 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that you generally need six members before you move a project proposal to project space. The short cut is not really a shortcut. Can I suggest using WP:UKEDU ? I'll put a link to your project in the newsletter - it might help generate some interest. Kudpung (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Interest
This may be of interest to you. If you look at the deleted contribs, you can see the original CSD tag (by Baseball Watcher) and my change to a G10 attack page. I was hesitant to bring this up to BW. Your thoughts? T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 01:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well noted. I come across this sort of thing a lot. It  appears that  some editors either do  not  understand the full implications of attack pages, or do  not  fully  read the page to  recognise an attack. I've had a look  at  the deleted page and it  was a blatant  example of an attack. Do  go  ahead and mention  it  in  the nicest  possible way, if you  want, thanking  for work  on  NPP, and referring  to  WP:NPP, and WP:CSD. You  could also  check the user's patrol  logs for any  other glaring  errors. --Kudpung (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look over the patrol log, but since I cannot view the deleted contrib's; it will be hard to judge whether the right tag was placed (unless the speedy was declined and the article remains). T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 18:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 19:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I  don't  want  to  make a witch  hunt  out of reviewing  deleted pages. I usually  take my  leads either by complaints on the user's talk  page, or simply  by  looking  at  pages that  have supposedly  been patrolled  while I'm doing  some NPP myself. You  get  a feel for pages that  might  have been wrongly  tagged by looking  at  the speed in  which  the entry  turns from yellow to  white, and  unusual page names, and then checking  to  see who tagged them or who patrolled them. --Kudpung (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep my third eye on Baseball Watcher to see what happens. If something like that happens again -- I'll be sure to drop him/her another note. I have WP Maintenance tasks piled up all around me that I have to get around to as well. I really don't have a third eye, it's just a metaphor   T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 19:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform
I will try to consider this seriously and submit my thoughts as soon as I have time, but that is unlikely to be for less than about 36 hours at least, and could be significantly longer. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks James. There are a couple of other user sub pages that are collecting thoughts too. At the moment, I'm collecting people for the work group and it would be great to have you along. It's not a question of having the same ideas as mine, but being able to reach a consensus on the different points without all the background noise. If you can think of anyone whom you would like to suggest for the work group, don't hesitate to let them know. --Kudpung (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI
. I wonder if this user even read what I wrote the first time...I doubt it. I've written to him/her before -- but he/she doesn't respond to constructive criticism, that frustrates me. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 22:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left another message on his tp this morning. There's no point in patrolling if he can't get it right. If he refuses to improve we'll have to ask him to stop patrolling, and write some content instead. Too many people think 'speedy deletion' means tagging articles as fast as possible. Kudpung (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He must really like you more.... T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 01:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With the best will in the world, sooner or later patience wears thin, and it's back to formal language. If he gets it wrong again lte me know.--Kudpung (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do, I don't want to suck up any more of your time. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 01:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That last IP edit was me...for some reason it always logs me out on my phone. Sorry. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 02:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry  about sucking  up  my  time -  that's what  I'm  here for. I'm  just  hoping  to  delegate some of the stuff to  people who  have a head on  their shoulders and who  will  be admins themselves one of the days ;) Kudpung (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

task force? what task force?
Hey. may I encourage you to alter your wikilink at Jimbo's talk, where you said, "If all goes well, we'll soon have a task force". The term "task force" links to a Wikipedia article about Select committees. Logically that may be fine, but in terms of helping people find where the TF is, it isn't helpful..... just alter the linky, wouldja? Tks. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The task force is here. It's not  a closed shop -  not  yet  anyway. --Kudpung (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Essay
After reading your own essay, I wrote my own, which may be helpful for Bureaucrats in the current process and your process.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: RfA
Hi Kudpung, sorry I'm so late getting back to you. I'm not really a good candidate for a task force on this as I've only ever !voted in an RfA once, and have read a few others in the past, always with my eyes popping at the bizarre discourse there. Plus I'll be away April 1-14. But let me know if/when it goes to a public discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Req
Can you please delete Midway International Airport (please delete the REDIRECT PAGE, not the article it redirects to), I am going to move the article there because that is the correct airport name. Someone moved it to Chicago Midway International Airport in 2007, and it never got reversed. It won't let me move it unless the page is deleted. Thanks -- T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 12:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me first bring up a discussion on the TP, and I will get back to you. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 12:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WT:RFA
I'm not sure whether you were addressing me in particular, but I just thought I'd clarify here that I don't necessarily feel that we should lower the bar, but rather split the administrative maintenance role from the controversial judgment role. Again, I'm not sure whether you were addressing me (if you weren't, than I apologize). Thanks, <font color="#960018">Tyrol5  <font color="#960018">[Talk]  16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really  you  in  particular. It  was a weak  attempt  to  keep  the discussion  on  track. But  that's impossible - WT:RfA is a virtual  pub, people stand around and talk  till  it's time to  go  home, but  there's never any  initiative to  get  anything  really  done. See how the talk  page has developed today  for example. Nevertheless, I get the feeling something is going to happen soon, but it won't be at WT:RfA, andit probably won't be on the lines of unbundling the admin tasks. Anyone who has recently been through that shite  knows what's at stake and why dozens of good, experienced editors are refusing to go through that process. Generally the people who should pass will pass, and those who shouldn't be admins will fail. The majority of those who do not succeed should have been dissuaded from wasting everyone's time, by being pointed more firmly at the recommendations for running for office. There are some pretty naïve nominators around too. For those who should and do succeed, there should be no need to put them through such a trial by fire. --Kudpung (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I have noticed the general trend of ongoing discussion at WT:RFA to die off without any action taken on the discussed issue, and that's precisely why I typically do not post their often. <font color="#960018">Tyrol5  <font color="#960018">[Talk]  16:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Rfa
Did you see my email? I'm on the road at the moment, with NCAA basketball and work temporarily taking higher priorities at the moment. I will try to look at your draft later in the week, but I won't be able to do it justice until next week at least. SPhilbrick T  00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, yes. I'm sorry, I had completely forgotten that I had already contacted you. My draft is not so important - it's not an intention to get my own ideas approved. It's just a stimulus. Much more important is that you consider signing on for the task force. I think you'd be a most valuable collaborator. --Kudpung (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NP. I just worried that it hadn't gone through. I will sign up, will try to do more in next couple days.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry  about  going  through  the draft just yet, but  do  get  your name on  the list  before we close it  off. I'm  sure you  input  later will  be extremely  important. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Paging Mr Kudpung
Knowing how passionate you are abut schools, you might want to keep an eye on Chapel-en-le-Frith High School where I just came across a bit of WP:OWN behaviour. If it turns into an edit war, perhaps you could step in and mediate. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll take a look and put it on my watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so your place is named after bees (ผึ้ง) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Chai kap! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea what กุด means. Best I can find is "verb: cut off; behead; shorten", and "adj: stubby; cut off; severed; amputated" - Do you live in a village of bee mutilators? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of place names round here that have the prefix 'กุด', but I don't know in what context. I'll have to  ask the missis. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

re: Rentschler farm
hi. how does tagging an article with unreferenced and uncategorized suggest the article wont "meet our criteria for inclusion"? - The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had checked for references per the suggestions at  WP:NPP, as I  did, you  will  see that  there are some references that that  might  assert notability. Of course, if in  an hour or two the creator has still  done nothing  you  could also  leave a message on  their talk  page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * which doesnt answer my question. which was, how does tagging an article with unreferenced and uncategorized suggest the article wont "meet our criteria for inclusion"?  are they not in fact good indicators on how to improve the article so that it does "meet our criteria for inclusion"? - The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It answers your question, but perhaps indirectly, because the article had already indicated to  you  that  it  needed referencing. The recommended effort at  page patrolling  is to  carry  out some first  checks. There is currently  a drive on  to  improve new page patrolling - you  can help. If anything  in  the recent updates to  WP:NPP are not  clear, do feel  free to  make suggestions for improvement on  its talk  page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * to quote The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what  WP:NPP  says -  I  helped write some of it;)  - of course, you'll  need to  sort out  what  are WP:RS (blogs are obviously  not  admissible), but it's a start. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, but as i said, there was insufficient context to identify the subject and thus no way to determine if the page created was referring to the same farm you have provided links for, thus i tagged it with unreferenced. - The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found there was significant context  based on  the same information  you saw in  the article, and was able to  come up  with  some sources very  quickly - there is no  other Rentschler farm listed. Please consider the other tasks  that  go  hand-in-hand with  new page patrolling - we need a strong  NPP team, and don't  hesitate to  ask  me for help  if you  get  stuck  on  anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * and how did you determine there was sufficient context? it was just the name of the farm, it didnt have the word museum, theres no way i or you could know for sure, and thats why i tagged it asking for references. btw, it just got deleted with (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject) so it looks like at least two other people also think it didnt have enough context. - The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right, deleted with a perfectly  accurate CSD  rationale -  and I  would have deleted it  it  myself after that  lapse of time without  improvement. Neither of us can know at the time of patrolling if a short and/or poorly  referenced article  is going  to  be the work of a lazy  creator. Nevertheless, our current philosophy, whether we like it or not, is to AGF and at least try and do some of the work for them.  However, don't  get  me wrong -  I'm  not an inclusionist  per se. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA taskforce
Hi Kudpung, I think your task force is a great idea to stop conversations going round in circles and actually get something done. If you haven't already, will you advertise it at the village pump etc? Most people don't read RfA talk: I think if we make an effort to make the task force more representative of the whole community we'll get wider perspectives on the problem, and find it easier to get community consensus for whatever the eventual recommendations are. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussions on RfA reform have been tried everywhere in  the past, with  the same result - too  many  cooks, too  much  background noise, too many  unrealistic suggestions, side-tracking, incivility, you  name it. This time we're trying to do something new. I'm hoping  that  a compact  task  force will  be able to  come up  with  some concrete suggestions for reform that  can then be put  to  village pump for fine tuning  and consensus. There is nothing  official yet about  what  we have started on  my page, it's just  really  an effort to  get  a serious task force together of people who  can work  towards this goal without  too  much  background noise. Do  feel  free to  add some suggestions for reform to  the talk page, but  we're not  yet  at  the stage for heavy  discussion on  them,  join  the task force list  too  if you  would like to  be part of it, there's room  for a few more.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite, though I'm relatively new so I'm not sure I have that many ideas on RfA to add. I agree that compact in number is good, I just fear compact in range would be bad. You perhaps risk being seen as an exclusive group of 'regulars', and missing the wikipedians who might have good ideas on reform, but avoid the whole area of RfA because they dislike it's current form. Though I suppose if dozens of people put their names down you'd then have the problem of too little focus.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The task force that  has formed is surprisingly  eclectic. admins, crats, editors, M-F, ages -16 to 60+, longterm users, and relative newcomers. The common  denominator is that  they  all  have clue, and the most  important  thing  is that  they  should be able to  work  together without  friction. Though  their ideas for change may  diverge they  should be able to  reach  consensus among  themselves for a plan or plans of reform  to  offer to  the community  who  can then accept them  or reject  them. Every  thinkable solution  has been discussed ad nauseam already  -  that  is the experience the group  can draw on. There will  always be people outside the group  who  will  complain  about  'cabal', or as one commentator stated in  another place: pushing  the wheelbarrow of power. I  think  all admins will  agree that  being an admin  is no  big  deal and that  very  few of them  wanted the tools in  order to  wield power. The big  deal  is getting  through  that broken process to  get  the tools. Somebody  has to  have some tools. Admittedly  we have some bad admins, but  fortunately  they  are very  few and between,  'tis true thought that  some, even in  the highest  positions of authority, have been forced to leave in  disgrace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Sounds like you've thought it all though. :) --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89

 * - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, was just making my bot a little upset ;), all the best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's a damned good bot :) There are more bots than admins! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)