User talk:Kudpung/Archive May 2011

hi from St. Mary's Residential Central School, Kollam (Quilon)
Hi

I have created a page for my school i have studied St. Mary's Residential Central School, Kollam (Quilon).it seems you have added "This article is written like an advertisement".please explain what is wrong with this page.if you can correct the article please do so.there is a link mentioned below use link as reference.please help me add a picture on the document.i will send logo of school and pics.please help me out

Bevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevindcruz (talk • contribs) 05:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. There is very little information  in  the article about  the school and that's why  it  looks like an entry  in  a directory  web site. The best  advice  I  can give you  is to go to the school  project  page at  WP:WPSCH and look  at  some of the school  articles that  are listed as Good Articles, or Featured Articles. The school  article guideline at  WP:WPSCH/AG will  give you  a lot more help  too. Bear in  mind however, that  primary  schools, middle schools and other schools that  do  not  provide education  to  High School  level  Grade 12 (18 years old) are rarely  notable enough  for a Wikipedia article. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Josh Eastman articles

 * These pages were originally from User:Josheastman who is now blocked. See the talk page of that user for the activity regarding recreating the page. There seems to already be a SPI entry filed, but the entry is blank. Zell65 (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks as if another admin has deleted it  anyway. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure by now the person responsible has given up, and this will all just blow over. Zell65 (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No sooner than I said that and here we go again: JO aka Josh Eastman. Different user name this time too. Zell65 (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't figure out from  the logs who filed that  blank SPI. As you  know more about  it  all  than I  do, would you  like to  get it  together and file a new SPI? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I  see User:JOfandontmesswithme has already  been blocked. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

createangelos rfa
Hi,

Yes, you or Eagle (the other contributor to my rfa request page) can delete my rfa request page (I never transcluded it). But this means there is some stuff I need done by admins or advice and you may have incurred a responsibility in this regard. In particular I want to create something like a disambiguation page about the world court of human rights.

There exist a few world courts of human rights, a student court in the UN, and a site that objected to a transfer of forests from public ownership in the uk, and others.

The issue is, I'm not sure if a disabmiguation is the right page to have. The world court of human rights is essentially already a wiki. Curious about your opinion on this and I'm putting a similar msg on Eagle's talk page. Either you or that person can pls delete my rfa request. Createangelos (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Travelmed.gr
Hello, Last friday, I have tried to create a wiki page for the company that i work for, Travelmed (http://www.travelmed.gr). It is an international company based in Greece and with other offices in Serbia, Cyprus, Athens, Corfu, Rumania and soon to be Poland. I have kept the information that I put on the wiki page strictly facts from the official websites etc. and only put links in the bottom under the link header. It said you have removed my article due to promotion / advertising, while this was not my objective. I would like to know what I could do to get my companies' wikipedia page online, what I had done wrong. Thank you for your time, Regards, Roger Verhees from Travelmed.gr


 * Hi Roger. The first and most common reason why articles get deleted is because people did not read the instructions first. There is a misunderstanding, perhaps conveyed by our very early slogan 'The encyclopedia that anyone can edit', that Wikipedia is indeed a web site where anyone can write anything, but the two phrases have very different semantics. Anyone can edit, as long as they stay within the rules and guidelines. Several experienced editors and administrators have decided that the article that you and your staff twice posted here may not be allowed to stay. This is nothing personal against your company - indeed, we've never heard of it. Your company fails to meet inclusion criteria on several counts, in addition to which, if you and your staff are writing about your company and claiming it to be the largest of its kind, then it is indeed promotional, and the intention is to increase the company's web presence. Encyclopedias are written by people who are independent of the subject and who have nothing to gain by its inclusion. All claims must be supported by established, independent third party sources that also clearly assert why your company is notable enough to be in the encyclopedia. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is unfortunately not another directory style website that all companies can join. It's operated by volunteers and owned by a non-profit foundation, and cannot be used in a way that will advance the development of other organisations. Do please read this information sheet: FAQ/Organizations, and accept our regrets at not being able to entertain you request at this time. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform
Hi SilkTork. I've not seen you comment here yet. It might not be your specific area of interest, but I feel you would have a lot to offer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take a closer look when I get some time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get around to looking over the next few days.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Great project. Yes, I'll help out where I can.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent message about external links
Hi, Thanks for getting in touch about the link I recently added to the Redditch page. I am new to editing Wikipedia, so appreciate the feedback. That said, I'm a bit confused as Rightmove is the accepted defacto standard in the UK, so linking to a list of estate agents on there seemed like a useful thing to do? Please advise! Martin AYocal (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin. I agree that a lot about Wikipedia is confusing to newcomers. Put in a nutshell, we just don't allow commercial links of any kind, unless they drectly support the verifiability of a specific item in an article - and this one doesn't. If you follow the links I put in my message to you on your talk page, you'll find more in-depth explanations and lots of tips on how things work here. There are probably a few more older rogue links on the Redditch page but I've been busy working on the Malvern pages and may not have noticed.  I hope you'll continue to contribute to Wikipedua, and again, don't hesitate to ask me if you would like anything else explained. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your Guide to Thai Culture
Please see if we can use Isaan Heartland. Taken from: Thailand: Traits and Treasures, National Identity Board, ©2005 by Office of The Permanent Secretary, The Prime Minister’s Office, ISBN 974-9771-52-4. Pawyilee (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Your Guide to Thai Culture site appears to be illegally using wholesale copied chunks from the book - which of course we can't do. Depends what you want to use. You can write your own text and cite the book as your WP:RS, but if it's for the Isan article, if it ever gets its  WP:FA status back you'll need to cite the page number(s). On another note, I'm going to Nonk Khai on Sunday (but only to the city), so if you want me to take some photos for you, do let me know. Take care, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your Guide also asks that you not copy it. The nearest copy of Thailand: Traits and Treasures seems to be in Singapore, but I'll make a note to ask the next time at at SEED. Pix of the the Garden of Sorrows (สวนโศกเศร้า) entrance would be nice addition, as well as of the nearby entrance to Wat Angkhan (วัดอังคาร) BTW, what language is being used in the post below? --Pawyilee (talk)


 * Uhm... English?  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That explains though not clarifies it: I'm from the wrong side of the pond! I wish you would replace the present pix of Old Nong Khai City Hall at both Nong Khai and Haw Wars, as I was taking a picture of the fountain and the Old Nong Khai City Hall just happened to be in the background. I don't have any at all of the newer monument behind the Police Barracks. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's multicultural Wikipedia adminspeak - somewhere around the middle of the pond I guess. I'm only doing a border run, so I'll see what I can do about the pix. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank the heavens that's over!
Ugh... if a generally positive RfA can be that draining, I dread to think what a negative response would feel like. Some sort of pre-nom screening/review needs to be brought in to prevent potential candidates from getting hit with RfAs like this.

Thanks for the support... there's an anti thankspam box on my talk page Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  09:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand your relief, although ut was pretty clear you would pass. You won't believe what a hell week my own recent  RfA was. Good luck and watch out for the changes in Twinkle's CSD dropdown that are set for admins  at immediate delete by default, instead of just CSD tag.   See you at WP:RFA2011. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jihadi tourism
I would value your input here, whatever your opinion may be. Best,4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. Well, I spent a lot of time reading the article, and the debate, and looking at the refs. 8 to 5 for keeping per pure !votes so far, but at the moment, on the strength of the comments, the deleters have some very strong arguments and I see no real consensus emerging yet. Depends if consensus defines this article as about a neologism, Jihadi tourism, or anything else. The article itself has no clear focus; it starts off as would it be about a neologism, but seems to mutate into an article about meeting places where the mujahideen gather to plan terrorism attacks. However, a closer look at the actual lexical definitions of the Arabic word jihad and the semantics of its various uses, might provide enough background to sway the AfD either way if done convincingly. Several of the refs use the term, but that does not make it any more a neologism than, say, 'sex tourism' to Pattaya, or 'pedo tourism' to Pnom Phen, or 'Grand Prix tourism' for the followers of Formula 1, or the 'gastro tourism' on the French food trail. Very controversial - I think I have to stay out of this one and  I certainly wouldn't like to be in the shoes of the admin who closes it. I'll continue to watch it though for my own education. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I completely understand your viewpoint. Thanks for taking the time to look.4meter4 (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see it  defaulted to  'keep'  per no  consensus. I  guessed it  would. I  said I'd  stay  out  of it and I  did, but  if it's any  consolation, I  would have been certainly  against  keeping  it  as a neologism. Something  else maybe. You  should stick  to  opera -  it's what  you  do  best, and I'll  go  back to  my  schools ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am happy to get back to less contentious articles.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research
Hi ,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

kindly provide the contents to improve
Pls provide contents of History of Chandigarh to improve. Mahesh Kumar Yadav      talk 11:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you get the contents where you took them from originally. However, please do not use this copyrighted material on Wikipedia - it will be deleted again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Contested proposed deletion of Mirrors (band)
Hello. I deprodded this. It seems clear that the article's creator doesn't understand the criteria for sources being cited in articles. As you'll see at Talk:Mirrors (band), good sources exist that could be cited in the article. These were easy to find from a Google search, and it would perhaps have been helpful if you had done a quick search yourself before proposing deletion as it appears that the article's creator simply needs pointing in the right direction. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PMFJI, but...is it now policy that people should just create articles and leave that awful messy business of adding sources to others? I mean, is our default position that everything that could be notable belongs here whether or not anyone has taken the time to actually demonstrate it? Frank  &#124;  talk  20:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You could try reading WP:BITE for starters Frank - we can't expect new editors to come along here and now how to write articles that meet the criteria that may be well-known to more experienced editors. When a quick search demonstrates that that the band are notable, it doesn't seem unreasonable expectation to expect that before proposing an article for deletion, and yes, we should keep and improve articles on notable subjects. We should also try to encourage new editors who are making constructive contributions. My suggestion above was to be a little more cautious with new editors and article deletion - your interpretation of it is a little overdramatic, don't you think? --Michig (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Michig. I appreciate your concern and your work at ARS, but sometimes we have to look at the bigger picture. I can't pretend that I did an hour long search for sources, but it took  me ages already to  check through all  the worthless refs (on two separate occasions), and the first 3 or 4 pages of Google revealed nothing. There are limits to what experienced editors whose focus is generally elsewhere can be expected to do 'BEFORE' PRODing a month old stub of an SPA who has been been 'pointed in  the right  direction' to  exhaustion, not only for this, but for other articles and files - let's not  ignore  WP:BURDEN. Even quicker than your Google search, a study  of the article history  and User talk:RonBuczko would have revealed that  we have a problem contributor who  refuses to take any  hints - User:Transporterman did his best too. Adding  the refs you found to  the article would not  have taken  longer than adding  them to  the talk  page. The PROD rationale was: Maintenance templates removed by creator. References are to press releases, album previews, and interviews. No reliable third party press coverage. Does not meet criteria at WP:BAND. RonBuczko has been around Wikipedia for over 4 years even if he has only edited it 161 times - that's plenty of time to learn the ropes and to have become a regular editor if he had wanted to. With  all  due respect, emphasis of BITE is therefore probably not apt in this particular instance; besides which, PROD is cheap, can easily  be refunded, 'prods' people into action, and does not need to attract the same drama as would a misplaced CSD or AfD. The article still has no RS, and the next step will probably be CSD (again) or AfD when another patroller or admin comes across it and checks the content of the bloated list of empty refs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not WP:BITEing anyone. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if a new editor wants to create an article, s/he should take the time to learn what is expected. We have WP:INCUBATE and WP:FIRST as starters; there are other links to help out. There's a certain level of knowledge associated with doing many, many things in life...why should Wikipedia be different? Just because anyone (more or less) can edit Wikipedia doesn't mean that everyone should...and most certainly doesn't mean that new editors should start right in on creating articles. There's nothing bitey about that. If an article doesn't meet criteria, it doesn't meet criteria - regardless of the experience level of the editor who created it. Nominating an article for deletion - CSD, PROD, or AfD - is not a comment on a particular editor; rather, it's a comment on the article itself. To assume otherwise is against the spirit under which we operate. Frank  &#124;  talk  02:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Right of course Frank, but in your/our defence, RonBuczko is not new, and has also not reacted to the many templates on his tp. That's the stage where regular editors can rightly consider whether they want to dedicate more time to an article where the creator won't/can't, or move on to more pressing things like answering genuine enquiries for help from contributors who are committed to producing quality articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor in question has made a handful of edits in the past and started editing again less than a month ago. Warnings started appearing on his talk page less than a month ago. Adding the refs to the article would have taken longer than adding them to the talk page, as it would have involved adding and altering text and then citing those sources, which I would have preferred the article's author to do - they might have learned something that would help in the future. We have a choice of how helpful we are towards inexperienced editors. Nominating articles for deletion may not be a comment on a particular editor but it does have an effect on retaining new editors. It's your choice at the end of the day.
 * Enough though I think - I left a courtesy note about a deprodding, and that's all - if other people want to drag the discussion into something more they can do it without me. --Michig (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At least you have understood why I couldn't be bothered to do more either. Nevertheless, your 'courtesy' note came across almost as a 'don't tag the regulars' type criticism - the sort of thing that could motivate an established editor to retire. I wonder what's worse: losing established editors, or biting one or two (which hasn't been done) who clearly  and decidedly have no intention whatsoever of becoming  regular editors. 'Nuf said. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please cut out the drama, it's now getting silly.--Michig (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi all, sorry for being such a pain at the moment when it comes to setting up these articles about Mirrors. Although I've been registered for quite a while at Wiki, I'm still fairly new when it comes to setting up new articles. I was lead to believe that I did quite ok until I saw this string of messages :) I will do some more research and adjust the references asap and make sure that not all of them point to the artist's official website. But please note that some information is only available on their website. I however do not understand why this page was nominated for Deletion because of incorrect refs, whereas I've seen numerous articles without refs for years or refs to the artist's website and they still exist today. Is this because the Mirrors article is fairly new and thus moderated actively? User:RonBuczko 10:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for chiming in. The page was nominated for deletion for lack  of proven notability and it may  still  be very  hard to  prove. The Wikipedia golden rule is verifiability, not truth so  even if the band were to  have charted at  No.1 for weeks and had several  golds and platinums over a period of 10 years, if nothing  has been written about  it  in  the traditional  mainstream press such  as national  daily  newspapers, quality  magazines, supplements,  or the highly  respected NME, or highly regarded, stable web sites, then there won't  be an article about  it. The easiest thing  to  do  is to  refer to  all  the links to  policy  that  you  have been given many  times over. It will  avoid us having  to  repeat  what's already  written. Please be assured that you  can't  use any  of the references you  supplied, unless they  support information  already sourced to truly  independent, third party  quality  sources as explained in  the many  links you  have been given to  policy. It may  be true that  other articles are poorly  referenced. They are probably ones that  slipped through the net  before Wikipedia had teams of volunteers monitoring  all new articles within seconds of their being  posted,  but the authors will  be notified eventually and if they  don't  respond the articles will  be deleted within seven days. We have a rule that  that govern this too  at  WP:OTHERSTUFF. The bottom line is, that all  articles must  be about  notable subjects, and that  notability  must  be proven, and a band's own web site, blog, Press release, concert poster, tour  dates, FaceBook,  or Twitter, are not  acceptable. The criteria are at WP:BAND. Michig has kindly unearthed some refs that  might  just  pass notability, and he has placed them  on  the article talk  page for you. Now, as I was the one who  stirred this all up  and got the blame for just doing  my  job, please accept my  offer of help -  if you  get  stuck, just  come back  here, and we'll  try  to  sort it  out. I'm not guaranteeing  anything, but  Michig's sources might  just  do  the trick  once you  have entered them  on  the article page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudpung. Lesson learned! Just updated the band page with some references to NME, The Guardian, Drowned in Sound and more as proposed by Michig. I might do some more research and see if I can add some more. Same for the Mirrors sub pages. So I can potentially remove all the 'non-important' references such as the press releases or any unknown websites with reviews, leaving some quotes or facts without a reference, and the article would still be accepted?User:RonBuczko 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Independent ref asserts notability and confirms the style connection  to  Krafwerk. The Guardian  article is very  good because it  is a third-party piece in  a quality  paper, and is entirely  about  the band; it is significant  coverage. I  don't  know about  ThisIsFakedDIY - it  looks like a blog  to  me, but  if it  is an editorial conteolled blog  of a printed periodical, it's OK. For some reason  I  can't connect  to  DrownedInSound from  here (I live in  Thailand), but  Michig  is an admin too, so  if he reccommends it,  it's probably  fine. Do  cut  down significantly  on  the other sources especially  those produced by  the band themselves. This is logical, because anyone can write anything  they  like about  themselves that  might  not  be strictly  true, and that  wouldn't pass muster for an encyclopedia. What  they  say  about  their own style is probably  fine to  use, but  if theirs were the only  source for example, that  30,000 people attended their concert at  a venue in  Manchester, then an independent  source would be needed to  back  up  such  a claim. You  now need to  take a very  close look  at  the criteria at  WP:BAND, such  as for example, charting  nationally  in  the UK (and you  would need to  cite a source for that  too), and check  off the things on  the criteria list  that  are met. Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Radha Madhav Dham
Can you step in please - User_talk:Ism_schism. -- Neil N   talk to me  02:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please direct your comments to the talk page of Radha Madhav Dham. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've offered some advice here and here. If discussion still does not  improve the situation, you  might  wish  to  ask  for more advice at  one of our noticeboards - WP:EAR would be a good place to  start, but  do give the article talk  page a while to  develop  first before escalating, and whatever happens, don't  fall into  the rather easy  trap  of 3rr edit warring  yourself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think discussion on the talk page is best for now. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment above was addressed at NeilN because he started the discussion here. Nevertheless, I  appreciate that  you  understand that  the same advice is intended for you both, and in  the best  of good faith. Now that  the business at  AfD  is concluded, unless there is  clear violation  of policy, I  wish  to  remain as neutral  as possible in  regards to  any  editing  disputes in  areas where I  am not a subject  expert. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales
Hi Kudpung, are you aware of this?

 Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  13:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Been following it  since day 1 actually. Basically  the same perennial TL;DR bar-stool  discussion as WT:RfA -  which  BTW is now all  but  dead.  Personally, I  think  my  name is known  enough,  so  even if I  had something  to  say, I  don't  want  my  signature on  it. Put  some plugs in  for the project  if you  like, it  wouldn't hurt, but  Jim knows all about  our project  already even  if the others don't. However,  what  we want  is active members, not  ones that come just  to  continue their bleating  in  another venue. Thing  is, those who  shout  loudest  have never been through  the hell, fire, and brimstone of RfA -  kinda like the non  players who  cuss the the players from  the sidelines at  the soccer match. In  my  experience, those who  shout  loudest are:
 * Those who complain  that  nothing  gets done, but  aren't  prepared to  roll  their sleeves up.
 * Those who hope that by  the time they  want  to run we will  have made it  easier for them.
 * Those who try  to  look  clever by  throwing  in  (what they  think are) witty  comments, but  who  don't  offer any  intelligent  solutions.
 * Those who have got mud in  their faces already  from  what  we have been saying in  general about  !voters and questioners.
 * Those who just  like to  shout  loud.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Aghet – Ein Völkermord
Hi. Are you interested in translating the article on the award-winning 2010 documentary film on the Armenian Genocide of 1915? In case you are, please go the talk page to coordinate the effort as I've also asked other editors (hope you understand). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on bot submitting users to RFP/A
Hi Kudpung, as you are one of our foremost experts on NPP, I thought I would bring this to your attention. We are working to get users automatically submitted for autopatrol rights. NoomBot is in a trial now, filtering out people on this list using these criteria. I think your experience would be quite helpful and I'm hoping you might provide some feedback or suggestions on NoomBot's BRFA. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 17:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I am one of our foremost experts on NPP, I'm just  one of several editors who have spent nearly 6 months analysing the situation and trying to sort the mess out that it has got into. FWIW, I will oppose quite strongly in principle, any motion to automatically accord any rights at Wikipedia. The danger being, IMO, that with 'precedent creep' that's what could be proposed for RfA.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have addressed this bot proposal at Bot requests/Archive 41/Archives/ 24. My  main  concerns are that  insufficient  research  has been made to  demonstrate a need for it, and that the list it  will  produce will  simply create more work  for admins rather than any  relief for NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, Kudpung. I'm not certain that I'm following you. Do you think the bot should not submit users to WP:RFP/A for admin review? Do you think it's better to let admins volunteer like we were before? - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 02:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With all  due respect, I  thought  I  had made that  perfectly  clear both  in  my  comments above and in  my  albeit  rambling speech which  starts with  'Strong oppose'. Admin HJ Mitchel has clearly  demonstrated that  the bot  submissions are returning  far too many  false positives, making  him a lot  of extra work, and one user in  Good Faith has produced similar extra work, making  me a lot of extra work. In  its present  form, I am opposed to  automatic generation  of the list   because the community does have a dwindling user base of sysops who  can absorb the extra work  for them that your  proposals will incur. Autopatrolled should not  be regarded as an award for good service (it  isn't), nor  should it  be a licence to  go  on  a creationitis spree. If  it  is possible, perhaps you  could look into  adding  some more criteria to  the bot such as for example,
 * ignoring users whose articles have a stub tag
 * ignoring users whose very short articles do  not have a stub tag
 * ignoring users whose articles have naked URLs in the ref and EL sections
 * ignoring users who have not added project  templates to  the articles' talk  pages
 * ignoring users whose articles have a 'Please expand from foreign  Wiki article' tag on them.
 * ignoring users whose articles do not have a page top  tag, but  which  have inline and/or section  tags.
 * ignoring users who do not have reviewer rights (which, BTW, were also  handed out  indiscriminately)
 * ignoring users who do not have rollback rights.
 * ignoring users who have not edited during the last  60  days.
 * ignoring users who not  only  have CSD, PROD, or AfD notices on  their talk  pages, but  who  also have  file notification  messages, and any other uw templates whatsoever.
 * If all that could be incorporated, and new trials return only  1 or 2% false positives, then the bot  project  could be partially  viable. It  still  does not  however, address the extra work for which  more active admins will  be needed - and to  be quite honest, I  (and perhaps many others) did not  ask  for the sysop  tool set to  do  this kind  of routine work.
 * Also, for some strange reason, some sysops do not have autopatrolled rights, although  I  assumed this to  be  be bundled with  adminship.
 * If anything else is not  clear please do   not  hesitate to  ask. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I will ask for the additional criteria. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 03:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, ignoring users who have not  addressed all the points required in  these recommendations, and a bit  more. Hope all  this helps -  please be sure to  follow up  on  all  the blue links. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, our NPPers are not in  the slightest  bit  overworked at  all, most  of them are young  newbies who  believe the best  way  to  contribute is to head  straight  for a semi admin  task without  any  experience whatsoever of WP:DELETION, or any  other kind  of maintenance tagging or minor article improvement (Snottywong  and I  have done the research). You  could consider helping  by making  proposals to  turn NPP into  a right to  be accorded to editors who  at  least  have some clue - I  feel that  this is a more pressing  issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback, Kudpung. I appreciate you taking the time to provide your input. Yep, I followed up on all the blue links, including your RfA and the other. Yeah, I saw the table Snotty made of patrols vs. edit count with his bot, and I agree with you that patrolling new pages should be a right and only done by those that are trained per the additions Snotty made to WP:NPP with your input. I also agree that is much more pressing of an issue. Unfortunately, not many people agree with us. I'm thinking about that issue too. I'll ask for your input before I propose anything. Thanks again for the help. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 05:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kudpung, are you happy to let the bot run as-is for the moment? I'm more than happy to add the additional criteria, I'm just a little short on time at the moment. If not, I'm happy to give the code to anyone else or wait until I have enough time to make the changes. Noom talk stalk 12:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt the good faith with which this bot project was started, but I'm one admin already who has now lost interest in allocating user rights because of it. I would say wait and see how other admins cope with the extra workload and see how long it takes them to clear the backlog it has created, before doing any further development on it and running it again. I'm afraid I don't know anything about writing bots at all, so I don't know if it's at all possible to make regex that address all the criteria I listed above. The bot will always return some false positives, and my concern is that admins will be lured into believing they won't have to do  so  much  manual  checking before pressing  the rights button. There's no panic - according autopat rights has far less impact on NPP than we've been led to believe. NPP is fraught with many problems, but this isn't one of them. If you're really concerned about developing the bot, do have a word with Snottywong - he now also has a ts account. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's a problem, I can tone down the amount the bot submits. At the moment, it adds more when there are less than 20 non-open requests, but I can lessen it if the workload is too high. I'm pretty sure I can do all the criteria you requested, and I think I will make an effort to finish coding it before an extended trial. Thanks for the input, Noom  talk stalk 15:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

oops

 * I just db-authored my misnamed template... after creating one with the proper name..&bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah,it was you was it? Got a ec when I was trying to move it for you. I may have reverted it now to a version without your db-auth. Let me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, done, deleted (for some odd reason, that  ec froze Firefox). If  you  make a mistake like that  again, the solution  is simple: just  move it. No need to  make again  and delete the old one. You  had simply forgotten the 'Wikipedia:' prefix. Take care :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried moving it first, but got some sort of a "blacklist" error I'd never seen before... &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing to  worry  about -  probably a database glitch. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: User:Crosstemplejay
Crosstemplejay has responded to the specific issues raised in the autopatroller request; your input is welcome. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks


Feezo has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

For 'watching the watcher' at Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled and following up on the edit conflict. Cheers :)

By the way, I saw you oppose the bot adding requests? I missed the debate on this, but it seems like a good idea.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Thanks Feezo, the cookie arrived exactly at  the same moment  my  wife brought  me a cup  of tea! I  caught  the debate too  late and they  had already  done the first  bot  run. I  left  quite a speech  against  it, and I  was the only  opposer -  although there never was much  of a debate about  it, kind of no  real  consensus. See the thread above at  User talk:Kudpung and follow the links. The main  issue is that what  little pressure it  relieves of the NPPers, and that  really  is not  much if anything  at  all, it  shifts the work  load to  the admins who  now have to plough  through  all these bot  requests that  take 10 - 15 minutes each  if they  are done properly - I  always random sample at  least  10% of the creations and go  way  back  in  the talk  page archives, and check  user logs. I already  did some checking  and found the bot  is returning  far too  many  false positives. When I  first  got  the mop, I  found it  fun to  accord rights, but  now I'd rather stick  to my  usual stuff sorting out  contentious deletions and smelly socks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Essay
It looks good.  ceran  thor 18:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Dropping by to say the same. Fantastic, comprehensive guide for anyone considering an RfA. I'll leave some actually-constructive feedback on the talk page a bit later, but just wanted to say excellent job overall.  Swarm   X 01:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate Your Contributions......!!!
Dear Brother,

How are you doing today, I hope you would be good, honestly again I was looking at your profile and really appreciate your work, I hope I can be at your place some day therefore I am keep editing Wikipedia as much as I can as your advised me earlier, Kindly keep in touch and review my articles and If I am eligible award me some Barnstars, as your visited India, Try to visit Pakistan I will more than happy to greet you here, These days I am working on University of Karachi Project where I am creating articles related to University of Karachi. --Faizanalivarya (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
The faulty connection issues are effecting me here in the states Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  04:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and sorry I had to withdraw from your project. I am just too cynical to be an effective member. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  04:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Creating new page
I am contacting you because I am currently interning with a volunteer organization and am interesting in creating a Wikipedia page for them. However in reading over the different guidlines for creating a page, notability for organizations and citation criteria, I was wondering if there is any additional information in creating it that I should stray away from that may have been terms for deletion in other cases. I would greatly appreciate it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amg921 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. (All the blue words are links for you  to  follow). If you  are working  for, with, or on  behalf  of a subject  about which  you  intend to  create a Wikipedia page, you  must read our policy on  Conflict  of Interest first. This does not  mean however, that you are completely prohibited from  writing  that  article. The   essential  aspects to  be borne in  mind are notability which  will  be described in  more detail in  the policy  on  companies and organisations, and the importance of substantiating  any information that  makes a claim  to  notability by  providing  reliable sources that  can be verified. Your text must  be absolutely  free of any  tone that  could be considered promotional,  broadly construed - remember that  Wikipedia is not  a B2B directory.  If you  tell  me the name of the organisation, I  should be able to  let  you  know very  quickly  if it  is likely  to  pass our inclusion  criteria. I would then strongly  recommend that  you  create  the article on  a sub  page in  your Wikipedia user space first, such  as at User:Amg921/name of article (draft) (replace name of article with  the intended article name, then click  the red link to  start  the page in  edit  mode) and then asking  me to  review it for you before posting it to  a live page. Please don't  hesitate to  contact me again  for any  further help  or information. (Please remember to  sign  your posts). Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. But as I am not directly affliated with the organization, I do not feel that it would fall in the COI policy restrictions when reviewing it. I intended for it to be written from a neutral standpoint so that others who were not aware of what they were could search for it, for content and not promotion. I will look into creating a draft page for you to look at as well and will contact you with any questions. Amg921 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is one Wikipedia page I am thinking about adding; if you could please take a look at the draft page I would appreciate any suggestions before publishing! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amg921/Armenian_Volunteer_Corps_(AVC)_(draft)

Amg921 (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've had a look. You'll need to  remove the list  of names of executives per WP:BLP - they  are not  notable. You  must  check the sources you  provided again to  ensure that  they  are of the kind requested at  WP:RS. Even if the organisation were world renowned (which it isn't), it  would still  need notabililty  establishing  per WP:ORG, and impeccable WP:RS references before it  can be included in  the encyclopedia. Have there been any  TV documentaries dedicated to  it? Or articles in  leading  newspapers? Sources that  only  confirm  the organisation's existence are not  sufficient. You  also  need to  drastically  prune the list  of external  links. per WP:EL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any way you could look at the draft page again. I have made some changes and added notable external references. I do however, have a question regarding the ones from previously as ell. I understand that they are not global publications, but they are notable in Armenia, where the organization is based, as well as globally. Which of the external links that are now included would you consider removing? I would like to know prior to publication that I have everything up to par with the wikipedia criteria. Thank you again. Amg921 (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no way  I  can vouch  for Armenian  publications, but  I'll  give you  the benefit of the doubt.  Other reviewers might  see it  differently, but  it's a risk  worth  taking. The external links are just  too  many and give the impression  of trying  to  be promotional. Try  to  whittle them  down to  the three most  relevant  ones. Remember that  Wikipedia articles are informative without  being  allowed to  be confused as a medium  for attracting  traffic to  your sites or your organisation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Cort Webber and Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts
This is a courtesy notice given your prior involvement with Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy or its deletion review (Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10) that these related articles are currently listed at AfD at Articles for deletion/Cort Webber. As attribution issues are involved, closure of this current AfD may result in the restoration of the earlier article, as a list of contributors would be necessary if the articles are retained. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

HI. This is the first time I've come across a case like this, it  must  be fairly  rare. So with all  due respects, I  think  I'll recuse and wait  for the community  to  decide -  then I'll know what  to  do  in the future. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's rare, all right. :) It's the first time I've ever seen this happen with an article that was AfDed where I didn't feel the new article was subject to WP:CSD. Procedural AfD seemed like the best approach. Of course, the notice is just a courtesy; there's no obligation to take any kind of action. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Gangsta University
You have a reply on my talk page. Notifying just in case if you are not watching. Thanks --is nafSadh  nosy? 18:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Susan A. McLean
Hi Kudpung,

I was trying to make an informational Wikipedia page for the Executive Director of a nonprofit, but you deleted it. May I ask why? How can I go about fixing the page?

Thank you! LitPartNYC —Preceding unsigned comment added by LitPartNYC (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but unfortunately the down side is that we have some complex rules, and  the encylopedia is not  just another B2B directory or social  networking  site. Please now read all the explanations that  were provided already on your talk page, and follow the links (blue words) for more detailed explanations before doing  anything  else. The short answer is that you should not be creating or editing articles in which you are associated with the subject in any way, and you may not under any circumstances use material copied fro other web sites. The article appeared to be for the purpose of promoting  a  non  notable company  or organisation through a business profile of one of its employees - non  profit  organisations provide services and receive funds and are not  exempt  from  Wikipedia's strict  rules against  advertising.  If you  feel  that  this subject  can meet all the requirements for notability, especially  for biographies in particular those about  living  persons, the claims  must then be supported by refrenced sources to extensive coverage in the  quality  press. You  may  then wish  to  start  a new draft  of an article in  your user space. It  can then be reviewed by  me or another editor  before it  is moved to  our public pages. Please put  new messages (see the instructions at  the top  of talk  pages) at  the bottom  of talk  pages, and remember to sign  them. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Idumea (band)
I am writing in regards to your recent deletion of my Wiki page, Idumea (band). I was under the impression that I had followed Wikipedia's guidelines for making a page. Obviously, that was not the case. Could you please enlighten me on what exactly I did wrong, so I can avoid doing the same in the future. I also apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. Thank you for your attention as regarding this matter. Neuroticguru (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Neuroticguru


 * Hi. Yes, I'm sorry I  had to delete your page. It  had 2 major contraventions to  our policy: The text  was taken straight  from a website, and no  references were provided that  assert and prove notability. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but unfortunately the down side is that  we have some complex rules. Please now read all the explanations that  were provided already on your talk page, and follow the links (blue words) for more detailed explanations before doing  anything  else. The short answer is that you may not under any circumstances use material copied from other web sites. The article appeared to be for the purpose of promoting  an apparently  non  notable band or musician. If you  feel  that  this subject  can meet all the requirements for notability, especially  for bands and musicians, the claims  must then be supported by referenced sources to extensive coverage in the  quality  press. You  may  then wish  to  start  a new draft  of an article in  your user space. It  can then be reviewed by  me or another editor  before it  is moved to  our public pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath of Jack and Jill School et al
I'm sorry for having AfDed them and causing all the commotion. What to do with the elementary schools now? Will it be alright to just redirect them? Moray An Par (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We all make mistakes ;) Redirect the ones that  can be. PROD the ones I  listed as 'no  indication' with  a rationale such  as 'No indication  of notability  or type of school' after removing  any  mission statements and non  encyclopedic blurb to  reduce them  to  stubs, and then don't  bother looking  for any more. A greater service to  schools would be to  work towards getting  some of the ones listed at  WP:WPSCH up  to  Good Article status. Some of them don't  need a lot of work to  get  there. Don't  hesitate to  ask  me for any  advice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's done. Moray An Par (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback
 User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 11:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Donald Smith (tenor) and Robin Donald
Hi Kudpung. The first one has now been overwritten at least twice with a real mess. Since I've already reverted it once today, I've left it, tagged it for the multiple and very obvious issues, and put a note at Talk:Donald Smith (tenor). The second one was overwritten with copyvio paste from the subject's web page by the same editor. I've reverted it and so far this hasn't been re-reverted. I've left a message with more guidance onthe editor's talk page, but I'm not sure, how much effect it will have. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Donald Smith (tenor): I would be inclined to  revert  right  back to this version and then just  put  back  the one or two  edits added by  reasonable authors. You'll then be able to  maintain  reverting  anything  new he tries to  do, escalate the warnings,  and as soon  as he's reached 3rr, let  me or any  other admin  know and we'll block. Robin Donald is easier to  control, for the moment it's basically  a stub. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fortunately another editor stepped in and reverted back to earlier version. I don't like reverting edits more than once unless they're BLP violations, copyvio or clear vandalism. Hopefully, the comments on the talk page from me and a second editor will convince them to stop. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Help
Your request is actioned, help is always appreciated although knowing what to ask for may be slightly less than straight forward. I believe I err on the side of saving articles where possible and being helpful. Any thoughts or suggestions.

 User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 11:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as I  wrote or rewrote most  of the page at  WP:NPP, there's not  much  more advice I  can think  of off hand. Saving  articles that  are of real interest and encyclopedic value is very  important  of course. But  blatant  crap  has to be deleted, and sometimes very  quickly  before it  causes problems in  Real  Life. If  you're not  sure which  CSD  tag to  use, rather than put  the wrong  tag on it, leave it  for someone else.  Read WP:NPP over and over again, and you'll soon  get  used to  it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will continue to do as you suggest, repetition is a good teacher, if I can be of service in anyway do let me know, TTFN  User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 12:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you  like, there is a huge backlog of unpatrolled new pages at  Special:New pages. But be warned, they  are there because they  are the difficult  ones left  by  young  or very  new patrollers. They  are also  there because most  of them  have been made by  WP:SPA who  never return after creating  their articles.  Look  for sources for them  if you  can, but  if you  can't find any, PROD them and they'll  be procedurally  deleted after 7 days. Another, do  tag them  with  maintenance templates to  ensure that  they  don't  remain  unnoticed for ever; Tagging  automatically  enters them  on the respective categories that  some editors are also  working  through. Good luck! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your guidance I will do so, I have also taken the liberty of applying to be an Ambassador, not in a hurry but saw it on your profile and like what I researched. User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 11:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is not too frivolous please accept some sunshine! User:MikeBeckett -> User talk:MikeBeckett Please say 'Hi' 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Accretive Technologies Inc
Hi

I tried to recreate my article and got the following message: 11:46, 19 May 2011 Kudpung (talk | contribs) deleted "Accretive Technologies Inc" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): and G11 - already deleted twice before).

This concerns the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretive_Technologies_Inc For the moment I don't have the time to become more familiar with Wikipedia policies and pilars. So, can you please remove it completely. Currently, it shows that the page has been deleted, we don't want that, it can affect our image.

In advance, thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabuelata (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The page (both versions) has been deleted and locked against  recreation.  I don't  think anyone will  be looking much for your company  here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you remove it completely please ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabuelata (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * With the exception of serious cases of libel  or defamation, and for protection  of minors, page logs cannot be removed, at  least  not  from  my  technical  level as an administrator of Wikipedia. Our rules are quite clear that  the encyclopedia cannot and must  not  be used in any way  that  can be construed as providing  additional  publicity  for organisations that  wish to attract  business or supporters for their activity.  The onus is on  the posters of new articles to  be familiar with  these policies. The immediate solution is that  you  take time to  read the instructions and create as soon  as possible a draft new article that  fully  complies with  our policies in  a sub page of your Wikipedia user space; it  would not  be visible to  the public, and I  or another editor  will review it. If  it  is appropriate for publication we would then unlock the article title and allow it  to be moved to  the public pages. The only  other suggestion I  can make is that  you  address the Arbitration  Committee by  email with your problem, but  I  fear their response will be of the same nature.  (Click  these links to  see our policies and guidelines :Creator responsibilities,  Notability, Criteria for Organisations, and Accepted reliable sources. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

page issue tags on Nordson Corporation - 2010
Hi. I think I've landed in the correct spot. I think you might have tagged our corporate page for the following:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications. Tagged since June 2010. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since June 2010. It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since June 2010.

If you can help me understand what your concerns are about the page I would very much appreciate it. I don't know how to get the big box with the ! off the page otherwise. Please email me at Thanks, Judy Bryan, Marketing Manager, Nordson Corporation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan66 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. For reasons of transparency, we do not  address issues such  as these through  email. For your security, your  email  address has been redacted. Unfortunately  these tags may  not  be removed until the issues have been addressed. Please note that  when an article is published in  Wikipedia, it  is no  longer owned by its creator. Our rules are quite clear that  the encyclopedia cannot and must  not  be used in any way  that  can be construed as providing  additional  publicity  for organisations that  wish  to attract business or supporters for their activity.  The onus is on  the posters of new articles to  be familiar with  these policies. If  it  is not possible to assert notability and provide the required referenced sources to  support it, deletion  of the article will  follow. (Click  these links to  see our policies and guidelines: Creator responsibilities, Notability, Criteria for Organisations, and Accepted reliable sources. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW: More details about the article at Talk:Nordson Corporation = these concerns were expressed over nine months ago. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much
This is to say how grateful I am for the two rights you accorded me today. I hope to use them to make Wikipedia better. As I said the last time these rights are not for our own good but for the millions who turn to WP as their main reference point. Thanks once again. A friend called - CrossTempleJay     talk 16:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Benito Soliven Academy
Hi Kudpung,

Good day. Thanks for your suggestions in the article I posted "Benito Soliven Academy". I have added the items "secondary/high school", to identify the type of school I have posted. But I really want to include the mission and vision items in this article. I don't think those are advertisement in nature, since they are not promoting any type of product, but only emphasizing the religious vision and mission of the school which is very important for the reader to know.

Anyway, if you can suggest a way to include these (which I think are very important for the readers), please help me know.

Thank you and good day.

aptogle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aptogle (talk • contribs) 10:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. We don't have mission and vision statement in encyclopedia articles. Also if you have time, could you please recast the tone throughout for a more formal English - 'didn't have the dough' for example, is not the kind of language we use in books and textbooks in Western countries. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer
I see you're still saying 'yes' - the pending changes thing is supposed to finish today. Doesn't do any harm, I suppose, but someone might get upset to be given something they can't use... Peridon (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The page is closed now - problem solved. Peridon (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Caversham
Yes, you are completely right that I am kicking the tires. As I mentioned in the AfD, it worries me that Template:Schools in Berkshire has so many primary schools that may not pass the GNG. Hopefully the non-notable ones in that template can be agreed to be merged. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't need to be agreed - Redirecting is uncontroversial and does not need a discussion. Please now follow the links in the message I left you - the threads explain it all quite well and it is very recent.  See also WP:WPSCH to locate a list of schools at AfD - they've almost all been nominated in good faith by editors who are not fully conversant with our policies and guidelines. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. I will consider clearing the primary schools section of the template of stubs and redirect said stubs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Be careful though, one school appears to make a strong claim of notability. Some schools have dead links in their refs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. It won't be for a while though. I am doing a major revision of Chrisye and haven't even had time to help out with the Requests for Feedback today. I will do my best to avoid stepping on toes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

talkback

 * x3  Swarm   X 07:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Death pentaly for drugs
Well if you bother to look at the Nutzworld.com link I added, thats where I got the resourced information from! So if you think you can find a better source, go ahead. I was hoping that you can help me improve on the article!!!!!! McAusten (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What should be done?
Hi, I am in a fix i cam across this article SHRI RAHUL GANDHI'S TIRADE AGAINST ACQUISITION AND THE NEGLECTED CASE OF HILL VIEW COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, PINJORE, KALKA, HARYANA in the New pages list. I do not know what to do about it. Could you help. I also figured it was about issues concerning India. I know you will be in a better position to address it. Thanks. A friend called-- CrossTempleJay     talk 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting in, but I have placed a speedy G2 tag on it.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And it was deleted by Sphilbrick. It's difficult to find the right CSD category for a page like that. It's clearly soapboxing and an opinion piece but there is not a specific CSD criteria for it. G2 seems apt, because if the creator knows and understands the word encyclopedia he/she obviously must know that the material is not encyclopedic and is therefore testing to see if he/she can post the article and get away with it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
A while ago, I asked 28bytes for his assistance in an effort to ping the members of our task force. I've also moved all the "suggestions" from the project's home page to RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals. See 28bytes's idea here to get discussion going on some of the "possible proposals." I'm thinking 28's idea will refresh the project a bit, and we can use it to evaluate which ideas we should ahead with.  Swarm   X 19:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, but I just can't take the fighting and the bickering anymore. I'll be back though -- I promise. Thanks for all you've done for me, and making my time here enjoyable. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Mfd
Re Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I'd support renaming at your discretion. Thanks. -- Klein zach  04:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no problems with a renaming, categorising, and backlinking. If this 'article' is to be kept, it should be able to be found. Any ideas for a name? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't know the background to this page, hence I didn't make any suggestions during the Mfd. -- Klein zach  05:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about Requests for comment/The lost conversation? -- Klein zach  05:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, now you know why  I  didn't simply  quietly move it myself, and decided to send it to MfD instead. I suggest userfying  it to User Animum/Is RfA a vote? (Discussion)  and putting  a 'User essay' template on it, then adding  cats 'Matters relating  to RfA' and 'User essays'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK! I support that! -- Klein zach  06:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, go ahead and do it. Don't leave a redirect.  Notify  the creator very  briefly  of the move. I'll link  it somewhere to various RfA matters I'm currently  working  on to  give it some exposure. Quote 'as per' the diff for this thread  in the edit summary. BTW, while you're here, is there any particular reason  you're not  an admin? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but if I simply move and rename the page, won't that leave a redirect? How do I avoid that? (Re admin, no particular reason but . . . . ?) -- Klein zach  07:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot - only  admins can move without  leaving  a redirect. Tell m when you've done it  and I'll delete it  as a G6 (housekeeping). Admin? Well,  ew need more, and unless you've got  some skeletons in  the cupboard I don't  know about, I  just  thought we could do  with  a couple of extra experienced hands around here. See this and let me know how you  feel. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done the move, so over to you to delete the redirect.

Admin? No skeletons, some track record for being anti-bureaucracy etc. Main obstacle is the sheer hassle of the process of becoming an admin. Don't think I'd have the required patience. Certainly no desire to be an admin. (On the other hand, if I woke up tomorrow to find I'd become one it wouldn't bother me too much.) -- Klein zach  05:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page to User:Animum/Is RfA a vote? (Discussion) since it was accidentally moved to the main namespace. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My error. -- Klein zach  09:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was actually my fault - I forgot the colon in the redlink I made. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA clerks
I had my own ideas about the clerking process. I was thinking that in order for further cooperation among clerks, there should be an official committee just like the ArbCom, MedCom, etc. This would ensure the communications of the members. I was also thinking about the basis that you could be come a clerk: i): You had to have some formal experience or should have should a little interest in becoming a clerk. (of course) ii) A clerk should have at least 3 months experience and 500-800 edits. iii) No blocks or editing restrictions or if there have been restrictions of any sort on you're account, it should have been at least +6 moths ago. I would have brought it to the main page's talk page but I want to see what you think first. Regards.  maucho  eagle   ( c ) 20:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perfectly valid suggestions - do go ahead and post them at WP:RFA/C. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA reform
Hi Kudpung, I don't believe we have always seen eye to eye but I really appreciate the work you've put in to the RFA reform. Now, I'd love to help out, but looking at the talk page it is quite long and I've no idea what's happening where. Can you please give me a clue as to what can be done? Thanks AD 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking up my invite to get involved. A lot of discussion has indeed taken place already so the best thing to do to get up to date is to at least read the talk of the main page at WT:RFA2011, then check out the main sub pages of the items that interest you, see their talk, and pick out interesting threads from the TOC. There have been many suggestions, but the main objective of the project is to abolish the drama. One item that many feel could be quickly proposed to the community is that of clerking. Some participants at RfA occasionally step in and attempt to keep things on track, but this is being done nowhere systematically or enough. It's one thing to remove a long, contentious thread to the talk page, but trolls need either firmly educating, blocking, or topic banning. To see this being done would send a clear signal to all that such behaviour at RfA is no longer tolerated. Blocking - or threatening to block - editors who fall victim to trolling is not a solution, all we lose is the editor and not the troll. Other important areas under discussion are installing minimum qualifications for candidates and possibly also for voters. Don't hesitate to ask me again if you would like any more pointers.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform 2011/Candidates
Hi Kudpung. I've finished getting the data together at User:Worm That Turned/RFA criteria and User:Worm That Turned/Successful RFA. When you get a chance, would you be able to merge the information together to RfA reform 2011/Candidates? From there we can possibly draw some conclusions about a minimum requirement for candidates, or at very least a "pre-RfA checklist". WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, happy to, but  give me a moment  -  just  finishing  dinner ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No rush, wasn't even expecting it today :) WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you  want  to  keep  your user sub pages when I've finished, or do  you  want  me to  delete them  for you? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and delete them, they were just somewhere to keep my work while I did it :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for copyediting Rose Bay Secondary College for me. I went back through and made a couple of changes for Aus. English and a couple of other bits and pieces. Beer on me whenever you're around.

Thanks also in regards to Turramurra High School. I don't think it's actually a school project; I think it's just a group that got together and decided to get it done. I'll keep an eye on it. - danjel  (talk to me) 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunalely every  time I  go  to  Oz it's only  to  Melbourne. No  worries ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerks
Kudpung, can I draft my proposal of clerks on the WP:RFA/C page?  maucho  eagle   ( c ) 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You most certainly  can. Start  a new section  at  the bottom  of the page, and remember to  add a message to  the talk  page describing  what  you  have done so  that  other editors can chime in  with  their opinions. I'll have a look  at  it  in  the morning. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Bot is back up. See New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/April 2011. &mdash;SW&mdash; babble 02:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for posting our survey onto the RfA Reform 2011 page
The Communicative Practices in Virtual Workspaces research group at the University of Washington would like to thank you for finding our survey to be important to the Wikipedia community. Your support significantly helps us advance our research by bringing in more participants. We value the users' needs and encourage feedback. Thank you again for your support and let me know if you have any questions. --Avdelamerced (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform 2011/Unsuccessful RfAs
Hey there! I cam across my own name on this page and it lists me as retired, having stooped editing on Feb. 11 2011....

As you can see, I'm still very active here! I just took a Wikibreak at the time!-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. No need to post here - I'm  not  the boss of the project ;) Feel free to  make the change yourself, and an appropriate edit summary. Thanks for your continued interest  in  reforming  the RfA process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure if I am a possible Admin candidate again or not....I don't want to say I am and act all elitist or anything. Besides, I don't want to mess the table up! Thanks for the comment :)-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, you don't need to post talkback messages. I have this paged watch-listed :)-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks ;)-- White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Lurulu
Looking at their talkpage, I see a long history of this kind of incompetence, and the Agnes Obel concerts is only the latest installment in that list. It seems to stretch back to 2007. I think this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, and a block may be in order. I can restart the ANI thread if you think that's the best course of action. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See his/her tp - I've just sent another to AfD because of a PROD  removed without  addressing  the issue(s). Continuing  to  delete these concerts may  do  the trick, and Lurulu  might  just  start  creating  some decent  articles. Let's wait  just  a little longer because WP:COMPETENCE is not  an easy  one - ANI is contentious when it  concerns music groups -  the contemporary  music cult is very hard nosed and they  often canvas, and use meat and  socks to  assure  their own consensus. whereas allowing   more evidence to  build up  would enable me to  issue a short block  under WP:DISRUPT. Let's talk  about  it again if they  refuse to  accept the FLAGICON guideline, or create yet  another tour list, because I  agree this has to  stop.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also a huge  amount of copyvio  or very  close paraphrasing  in  much  of Lurulu's work. i'm  editing  out or recasting  as much  as I  can, without  tagging  the articles, but  I  will  place a soft  warning on  thier tp to  try  and help  get  the message across. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a great pity. I think Lurulu has enthusiasm and dedication to his/her chosen subjects that Wikipedia would greatly benefit from. Unfortunately my experience has been that he/she has little interest in friendly advice, co-operating with others or following style guidelines. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't follow this
I didn't follow this sentence in your oppose rationale at Requests_for_adminship/Ebikeguy : Note that no candidate has succeeded with less than 3,000 edits since 2009, and that one had over one million edits cross-Wiki.

Did you mean "only one", instead on "no"? I vaguely recall supporting someone with only a few edits on en:wp, with many edits elsewhere, and was trying to remember the situation. A million sounds like a lot. Was it that many?-- SPhilbrick  T  13:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's all in here: RfA reform 2011/Candidates. I only added the page yesterday. I remember that RfA too - it was all a bit odd. If you have any questions, best ask Worm, he ran the script to do the extrapolations. There's some very interesting stuff in those tables. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you agree "only one" is right? You wrote "no candidate".-- SPhilbrick  T  14:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)h


 * Yes, those were Worm's actual words, I was just writing from memory, but I don't think it's worth splitting hairs about. The candidate's a really nice guy, and IMHO, just needs to clock up a few more thousand edits  in the right places so I can apply a metric. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to belabor this minor point, but I thought you would want to correct your error.


 * The summary (presumably from Worm) says:


 * Only one person since 2009 has gained adminship with less than 3,000 edits


 * You said:


 * Note that no candidate has succeeded with less than 3,000 edits since 2009...


 * Do you see the difference?-- SPhilbrick  T  16:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, I'm a linguist ;) I already said above that I was writing from memory. But anyway, what's the problem? The RfA - which you apparently didn't vote on - has been closed, as we all knew it would, and cannot be edited, and so far, Worm's tables at RFA2011 haven't attracted any comment yet. The ony exercise the reform project is concerned with in this respect, is not to prevent any serious contenders from seeking office, but to discourage those who don't stand a chance at all from embarrassing themselves, and wasting our time. It's not a question of raising or lowering a bar - there isn't one, until one reads the data Worm provided, and the table I compiled right at the end. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't contribute because I was doing some research into candidates with low edit counts. I had supported the one candidate with fewer edits than Ebikeguy, so I wanted to make sure my intended oppose for Ebikeguy wouldn't be inconsistent. By the time I wrote an oppose, the candidate withdrew. However, I was distracted by trying to figure out why you were saying that there was no such candidate, and I wanted to see if I was missing something. Had it been a article, I would have corrected it, but it isn't usually acceptable to rewrite someone else's words outside of article space, so I was trying to get you to correct it, so future readers wouldn't be mislead. We can move on :) -- SPhilbrick  T  16:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the Ebikeguy's nominator could have used better common sense on that nom rather than put that candidate through that.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 18:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Harry potter and the Never War
Hi, I wasn't exactly sure which was the right one to use, and I thought G11 best fit the article. But it didn't really sound like an attack page to me though. Wasn't it just an article about an unconfirmed rumour? --  T H F S W  (T · C · E) 16:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadly the young adult author's reaction to her elevation in social status came at great cost to her image and the image of the now household name, "the boy who Lived" . She soon joined and in their assault of the Hollywood party scene. The happenings along these misguided ventures are far to gruesome and vile to be discussed on the interweb.As one would expect, the fascist governments of Canada and Britain did not take kindly to her vagrant lifestyle. These small and fickle nations were soon pushing motions to ban future works of and even deport her to the Congo. These motions soon passed and all future literature of the author was soon banned in all Canada and England. In addition, was urged to leave Britain for a suggested group of African nations. The United States would not stand for such atrocities. They quickly took in young and offered her entrance to an intensive 4-year rehabilitation clinic for the lost and misguided.


 * I think that  confirms the importance of reading articles carefully before tagging them.  automatically  puts a special red alert on  all  administrators' control panels so that they react very  quickly. Did you  also follow up  and report the user for infraction  of the username policy? Anyway, not to  worry  now, you can always ask me or another admin  for help  if you're not  sure what  tag  to  apply. Take care. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unclear about Editing Notification
I have a questions regarding editing that was done on the Birthright Armenia page, since you are the editor that flagged the issue. The following is the editing notification, but I am unclear on what needs to be done because I updated the information since the said date to fix this by referrencing the information, but the notification is still shown.

"The topic of this article may not meet the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (April 2011)"

Thank you. Amg921 (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. You'll need to  go to  the article's editing  history  here here -  there have been a lot of edits and changes since I  commented on  it, including  it  being  proposed for deletion. The place for further disscussion  would then be on the article talk  page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I went through and saw the edits done by the many different people. I am still unsure about what additional sources need to be added since there were not a lot that were accessible. But if it does not seem to be primarily negative feedback than I think that it may be okay in that sense. Amg921 (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle
I noticed your comment on WT:TW. I agree that it is unfortunate that bugs were present when Twinkle was upgraded. However, unless you have programmers with lots of time to work on their code, it is very difficult to ensure that all the holes are plugged and everything holds together. We test the most important changes, and then other ones that we have time to check.

Anyway, that aside, you also said that you had found a lot of bugs with Twinkle – indeed, "too many to list". If you have a spare moment to tell me/us, we would be happy to hear about quirks, problems, unexpected happenings, difficulties, etc. with Twinkle, as we certainly do want to fix them! (Or at least try to fix them. Sometimes it's easier said than done, especially when one does not own a Mac, etc.) Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I didn't  mean  to  sound sarcastic, and I'm  sorry  if you  took  it  that  way. Yes, there are indeed thousands of Mac users out there but  probably  not so  many  who  are admins or busy  editors doing  household chores. I  don't  know how Twinkle works or where its code is stored so  I  can't  be of much  help right  now,  but  I  think  it  has a lot to  do  with  js. From  now on, I'll  message your tp as I  come across them. For the moment  the inconvenience is that  there are things that  only  work  in  some Wiki  skins and not  on  others, and in  some browsers and not  on  others. From  now on, I'll  message your tp as I  come across them, and then you  can let me know if you  would like me to  test  the fixes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfA Advice
Thanks for the link, Kudpung. I'll try and read it thoroughly. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've read it and will try and improve myself. I never suspected that keeping my barnstars on my talk page would be seen as pretentious. I will try and help develop some of the further along articles as well, as well as wait another couple months. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)