User talk:Kudpung/Archive Mar 2015

You've got mail!
--L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 04:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

request for admin
Hello Kudpung,

I have been editing Wikipedia for over three months and I have almost gotten 600 edits. However, there are a lot of things that I have to do and I need that little extra push from being a admin to achieve that. I admit I have made a couple of mistakes and I am deeply sorry. I will try not to do them again. In the meantime, the astronomy field needs improvement so I am trying to help but I can't quite get though to improve the articles. Plus there are a couple of other thing that I need to do. So please share with me your ideas on this so that I can help Wikipedia more with my contributions. The whole reson why I am asking you to nominate me is because I want to make wikipedia a better place. and when you reply, please ping me.)I am. furhan. (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC) I am. furhan.


 * Hi, with a total of only 580 edits you're quite a long way off being considered for adminship. I suggest you read WP:Advice for RfA candidates and follow all the links in it too. You'll see that there is a lot of experience required and you'll be able to evaluate what you still need to do and learn. Keep up the good work. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I sometime wonder, newcomers have time to type long messages regarding RfA but don't have time to even read the page, WP:RfA, although they still want to run for adminship. Peculiar!  Jim Car ter  05:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

An apology
Hi Kudpung,

I just wanted to apologize for this and this, along with any other similar comments I have made. Although I still disagree with the particular actions you took, my wording and tone was unnecessarily hostile and uncivil, and is something which I sincerely regret. I should have been more civil when expressing my opinion. Best regards, -- Biblio worm  01:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection of Template:Pending changes table
I don't think that template protection is warranted. See talk page. Could you consider changing it into semi-protection? --Pxos (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . I think  you  can rest  assured that  this template is protected for very  good reasons. I  personally  see no  compelling  resons to  unprotect it. That  said, 'templates' is not  an area where I  work, so  you  might  need to  start  a full discussion  as to  why  you  think  it  should be unprotected. FWIW, however, you  may possibly be wasting  your  time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Semi-protection is the tool to prevent vandalism. What are the good reasons? This will prevent all good-faith edits to layout. Would you fully protect this? If not, then template protection should not be the first option here. --Pxos (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , I have already said that I do not  work in that area. Please ask someone else or wait for the discussion you  started on  the talk  page to  develop. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well why do you protect templates if you don't know the reasons for protecting them? See WP:PINKLOCK. You don't need to ping me, I'm an administrator on the Finnish Wikipedia and do keep an eye on my watchlist. Thank you. --Pxos (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia. We  have different  rules here which  you will  understand better when you  have edited more regularly. Perhaps if you  would look  at the history  of that  template you will begin  to  understand why  it  has been protected. I do  not  work  with  templates so I most  probably  protected it  following  a fully justified request  at  RFPR. Now please continue the discussion  on the template's talk page. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is the request. I have already looked at the history. Please don't tell me to go somewhere else to continue this discussion when you make assumptions about me and my understanding. I have started a discussion on RFPR about this and asked to consider lowering the protection. I fully understand that you have different rules. I have read some of them already. --Pxos (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * is a highly experienced editor  on  this Wikipedia and he knew what  he was doing  when he made the request. You  can be sure that I  don't  waste my  time on  flippant requests. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * He asked for semi-protection. You made it template-protected. I have tried to say that template-protection does not allow almost anyone to edit the template any longer. All your arguments seem to be ad hominem. Someone else understands this and that, but Pxos doesn't. I haven't seen any valid reasons yet, only you telling me that "the reasons are very good" as if I was a six-year old. --Pxos (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're both getting a little confused here, and misreading what the other wrote. I did indeed make a request for semi-protection on the mentioned page, which I very strongly feel was, and is, necessary - no point rehashing my rationale as there is already a diff for it here. Kudpung, Pxos is asking why you put the page under template-protection as a result of the request; I must say that I remember being a little surprised at the time, but I didn't see it being a major problem. What Pxos is asking is for you to lower the protection level from template to semi, not to remove it entirely - I think the request is a good one, and is certainly worthy of a proper answer. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Template-protection is not semi-protection that can be applied to templates liberally. It is full protection. I don't think Kudpung understands that as he doesn't work with templates. But this issue has been resolved now and I thank Kudpung for lowering the protection. One should consider template-protection as annoying to the regular user as the super-protection level to sysops, which was placed to stop administrators at German Wikipedia. Hundreds of sysops and users were outraged for breach of their freedom to make administrative actions. Protecting pages indefinitely is contrary to the very idea of Wikipedia where everyone can edit. There must always be very good reasons for indefinite protection, and it is not enough just to tell the inferior creatures that those reasons are simply beyond their understanding. Now I think I have said everything I need and I can leave you in peace. Pxos (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, however I wouldn't blame Kudpung too much on this one; template protection is relatively unknown outside of the template editor circles. I think there is a good justification for protecting this page indefinitely; there is no reason why an IP/brand-new account should be changing anything on the page, bar the correction of spelling errors or typos. Thanks to you, Kudpung, for dealing with this - both in the first place, and now. I hope you both have a good day. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)