User talk:Kudpung/Archive May 2010

Re:Fighting vandalism
I'm not quite sure what you mean by sort of my own posts first? Could you explain? Thank you! Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:soccerbase
When mattythewhite said that, he was only talking about 3 stats not 10-15. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you ever so much. Just one last thing.I just wondered if you have looked at my contributions and how many i do a day and if you would consider nominating me to be an administrator. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I look at your edits quite a lot, that's why I jump in occsionally with some advice. I never personally criticise your accuracy though, because I  don't know anything  about football. As several editors have mentioned before, there's not  a lot that  becoming an admin  will do  to  advance the good work  you  already do  on football  articles. Being an admin  means having to do  a lot of unpleasant  tasks like telling  people off, and excercising  perfect  judgement at WP:AfD, WP:CSD,  WP:RfC, WP:ANI, and stuff like that. I really  don't  think you're ready  to  be an admin yet, besides, it  would take away  too  much  of your time editing  football articles. Admin  work hasn't got  much to  do  with  football or any  one subject  in particular. I've been around Wikipedia for a long time, but  you  can bet  your life if I  wanted to  be an admin they  would fail  an application  from me too, even though I  keep  my  nose clean. My advice is just keep  plodding  on  for a while and make sure your work  is beyond reproach. Try  to  diversify  a little bit  more from  only  editing  or updating  stats, to show that  you  have an all round knowledge of other  subjects, after all, a high  edit  count is not important  for being  a good administrator. One thing  you  could do in  your favour is put a bit  more about  yourself  on  your user page. People like to  know about your background and why  you  likelike working on the encyclopedia. Look  at  this for example,  It  says rather a lot, probably  more than you  would need to  say  about yourself, but  it's not  as boastful as some.--Kudpung (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF
Hi Kudpung! Can I suggest you consider the dangers of accusing others of bad faith? In the last 24 hours you've accused me of attempting to "bully" you and user: 93.96.148.42 of making an "inflammatory statement" and speaking "gibberish". All either of us have done is point out in perfectly civil ways that you have made mistakes on our respective talk pages. Might it be sensible to take the heat out of your responses to other editors? To quote WP:CIV, to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated Alistair Stevenson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC).


 * Alistair, nothing was pointed out to  me in anything  resembling 'polite and civil  ways'. The heat  was in the totally snide and unnecessary  comments regarding  my  health  and my  age,  and I  gave a perfectly  accurate explanation  and requested that  future comments be of a less disparaging nature. The heat  was in  a totally  rude retort  at  a template mistakenly  placed in GF on  someone's talk  page. There were undeniably  uncivil undertones in  both editors' comments - it's hardly  surprising that  they  invited a clean, polite, but  terse reply suggesting they  keep  their own houses in  order. I  certainly don't  treat  constructive criticism as an attack, but  I'll fight  like  a dog  when I  am blatantly  insulted for doing  otherwise irreproachable work  on this encyclopedia and respecting the rules.  I suppose that  you  have never made a typing error on  a talk page or another mistake when cleaning up some suspected vandalism - such  as omitting to  sign your messages sign  your messages, even if they  are only  on  a user talk  page.-Kudpung (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It can't be easy producing "irreproachable work". I wish you luck with it. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not difficult if one decides from the very beginning to  obey the rules, and follow the guidelines. If  one does not know something, one doesn't  post  it. If one has no  real  reason  to  be abusive, one does not  offend other editor - one assumes good faith  instead,  and it's absolutely  taboo  to  introduce remarks about  age, race, health, gender, or intelligence. You'll get  used to  it  by the time you  have a bit  more experience - it  always takes a while and I  made quite a few more typos with  my  English  QUERTY keyboards years ago. I  tried to avid upsetting  people though  and suggesting they  might  be physical  or mental  cripples. Do  try  to keep  a cool head in face of innocent  mistakes made by  busy  editors. There is no  obligation, but  you  might  also like to  consider configuring  your user page so  that we might  know with  whom  we have the honour of communicating. Be aware also that  due to  the similarity  between your and 93.96.148.42's edit  histories, edit counts,and near simulaneous posts,  a WP:SPI  might  be taking place - bots can pick these things out  automatically.--Kudpung (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Paranoia unjustified!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Elgar
Thank you so much for your kind words! I have nearly finished - now only the musical analysis section to complete, then perhaps off to peer review. - Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I responded   Tim  1357  talk  01:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Incivility
If the rude message on my talk page came from a robot, why was it signed by you?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Standard" or rude - still don't understand why YOU sent it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "I sent it because if I hadn't sent it, someone else would have. " I don't quite understand this attempt to avoid responsibility.--113.53.112.84 (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, your are avoiding  responsibility  by  not  wishing to  follow Wikipedia guidelines, and etiquette. Please also  remember to  sign your messages.--Kudpung (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I edit wikipedia. I do not like your personal attacks.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read this - "There are some signals that in our more mature projects, we are not as effective as we could be in helping new editors become active contributors. There are also signals that more experienced editors and administrators are leaving due to stubborn behavior, let alone outright hostility. Respect, civility, and good faith are critical to ensure a long and active life-cycle at Wikimedia. The Foundation may be able to reduce community friction by communicating their strategic priorities, and by improving community tools and processes in order to enable more constructive experiences. Wikimedia Priorities for 2015" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I know it - I gave you the link to  it. --Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe think it through:)93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, I got a rude message wrongly accusing me of mis-editing an article from you, and you are not at fault (but I am?).93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you actually read my complaint - viz that you accused me of editing Grade_I_listed_buildings_in_Worcestershire badly, when I had made no edits to the page, as shown in the history! I don't understand why this message came signed by you.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We've discussed that already an the matter is closed. That  was an old  error, it  can  happen in  GF and I  retracted it. I  do  think  now that  you  are unnecessarily prolonging your series of complaints, and I  suggest  you  are using  straw man arguments. We  wold both  probably  do  more for the encyclopedia if we get  back  to  doing some serious editing.--Kudpung (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Let's be fair about  this, you  got  a standard Wikipdia template message, designed by  and agreed upon by  a consensus of Wikipedia participants. You  need to adapt  to  our way  of improving the encyclopedia if you  wish to be part  of the community. I've said before that  I'm prepared to  help, but  the way  you  have chosen to communicate with  me from the very  beginning  is contrary to  the very paragraph  you  have cited above.  --Kudpung (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not explained why I got this message in error signed by you. You did not apologise - but started to attack me. I am part of Wikipedia.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/New questions
Hi, Kudpung. I made a subpage to discuss possible new standard questions for RFAs. You had indicated that you like the idea but the wording could be improved. When we have time, I hope we can do that at the subpage. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Pronunciation respelling key
Hi. In case you're not already watching this page, you might be interested in the current conversation. Maurreen (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Work of Art Neutrality Question
What are you complaining about? You have put a neutrality and POV flag on the article, and on my talk page without explaining what needs to be balanced in the article. This is not a productive way to edit - you should write a proper explanation on the talk page of Work of Art, rather than lazily 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)flagging the article as infringing your interpretation of wikipedia rules. This would help improve the encylcopedia.


 * Tagging (flagging) articles that  need attention  is a perfectly  normal  process, it's oneof the standard ways of improving  the encyclopedia, and it's nothing  to get  upset about. If  you  know the rules, policy, and guidelines, you  can easily  address the various points and significantly  improve the article in  question. Not only  was an explanation  placed on  the article's talk  page, but  the tag also  placed a semi  automated explanation  placed on your talk  page, and  a manual addition  to the notification  template was also made (see the italics). The article was tagged for a clear case of not  being  compliant  with  Wikipedia  content  policy. I  don't  see how that  can  be classed as lazy  editing. Nobody  is stalking  you,  nobody  is being  uncivil to  you, and nobody  is trying to  scare you  away  from working on the encyclopedia. Such messages are intended as a help. Please do take time to check out the links I  gave you, and read up  on the various policy,  without  taking  their pargraphs out of context  and making  straw man arguments.  I  know the policy  is complex, but  we all have to  learn it. If  I  revert  your removal  of that  tag and than you  remove it  again, that  would also be against  policy. But  I  don't  think it  would be very  helpful and it  would probably  only  serve to  prolong  the resistance you have to  my  help.If  you  really  want  some help  in understanding the NPOV rules, please don't  hesitate to  let  me know, and I'll  explain  the policy, but  I would appreciate it if you  could ask  me in a less combative way.--Kudpung (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Before flagging for neutrality it is normal to state what you mean. Have you done this? One line saying you agree with my suggestion to delete 10 lines does not do this. It is lazy, and if you check the guidelines I think you will find it is not recomended.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be precise, you put a template on my page accusing me of POV editing, but I don't know what POV you mean. It is totally unreasonable to complain that editing has breached neutrality without explaining how.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you wrote above meets definition of a straw man argument - IE nothing about the article AT ALL. Was not complaining about stalking, but lazy editing.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Keith D (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not know if you saw this but have archived it now & changed link above. Keith D (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep off the grass
You know, "Keep off the grass" (not to be confused with Keep Off the Grass or cannabis withdrawal) could be notable. The topic of whether people are allowed to walk on lawns has been hotly debated over many decades:. Now, I'm not going to perversely create such an article to spite you, but these sources could well be incorporated into Lawn. My point is that topics that appear to be ridiculous might not be - and to not tempt people to do things you don't want them to do... Fences &amp;  Windows  23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please lay off the sarcasm/attacks
I know that we have our disagreements, but please keep your comments at the level of content and refrain from ad hominem attacks against Americans (for example here and here). If you have a very low opinion of the knowledge and intelligence of Americans, as some of your edits indicate, please try to keep it to yourself rather than let it affect your work on Wikipedia.

For what it's worth, I was born and educated in the UK, and the other editors who work on the pronunciation/linguistics pages come from all over the world. Even if we were all USA natives who had never stepped foot outside the country, that would not be a justification for indulging this apparent bugbear of yours. Please bear in mind that Personal Attacks include "[u]sing someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". That seems close to what you are doing here: where the bulk of your edit could be paraphrased as "You're American so what would you know about RP?". Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I regret to say that you really didn't answer my main point.  You say that you "have absolutely no intentions whatsoever of disparaging the Americans or any other nation", but that is what you clearly did in the diffs that I link to above.  I agree with you that some of the other editors have also behaved unacceptably at times.  However I do sympathize somewhat with their frustration.  There is a tendency to ignore or evade specific questions that other editors put to you, and substitute "reams of verbiage" -- "stalked, hounded, abused, and slandered", to take one random example :) .  Unfortunately this has all combined to make the IPA discussion rather less civil and productive than it might have been.  Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you will  be relieved to  know that  the incivility,  that  was begun mainly by  one particular editor whose ego rather than knowledge has fostered so much  ill  feeling, has now forced me to  join  the ranks of those who have retired for the same reasons from any  further participation  in  the possible improvement of these IPA issues.--Kudpung (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry looks like I forgot to give you a prod when I posted this. Keith D (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)