User talk:Kudpung/Archive Nov 2018

Welcome back
Glad to see you're an admin again! That's all, have a good day. python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 16:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome back too! Deryck C. 10:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just saw this in the SP, adding another "welcome back" to this list. 14:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you are back. I've not gotten into the details of why you dropped the bit to begin with, but hope all is well on the other side of the globe.  I'm barely here myself, on the fence about, well, most everything.  Hard to get emotionally invested as of late, suffering from a severe case of apathy.  Anyway, hope real life is treating you well.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, nice to  see you  around. I  handed my  tools in and took  a break  for  a couple of months purely due  to  health  and domestic issues, but  the ill  spirited crowd naturally made a song  and dance about  my  ressyoping -  which  had nothing  to  do  with  my  absence. I  still  won't  be very  active for  a while. Take care yourself. Best,  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course, I'm glad you are back too, Chris. And I can echo Dennis's comment about apathy.  Everything seems like swimming upstream in the Salmon River. John from Idegon (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Signature change
I have changed the appearance of my signature.  Barbara    ✐  ✉  10:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello Kudpung, how have you been? You granted me reviewer rights back in August for a 3 months period. Subject to re-evaluation. I hope I have given a (very small) contribution to the new pages review backlog, and I see that the needs are higher now. If you could evaluate those few articles I reviewed and give me feedback, that would be great! If you deem that I can continue to have the reviewing tools, I plan to continue to use them, by continuing to assist in reducing the backlog, so you can grant them for a longer period now. Best! --1l2l3k (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

CSD
F.Y.I., I see you were involved with Salina Vortex Corporation a few months ago. I just tagged Salina vortex corporation. MB 01:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * already deleted by  another admin. I have salted the title.  This is a persistent  spammer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ITM wording
I made a change at ITM that may have caused a glitch in your intended reading. Could you re-check, especially and to convince declared paid editors that despite the rules, their work is nevertheless unethical in combination with naming a declared paid editor in the same writeup? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Worcester history page
I'm having some trouble with a hostile editor who seems to have taken a dislike to my work. I'd appreciate some help with this if you have a moment. Jim Killock (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * please provide me with a link  to  the diffs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, at the moment it is discussion on the talk page, revolving around whether or not to separate "Notes" and "Citations. PBS removed this distnction, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Worcestershire&oldid=868370844#Notes
 * I have been trying to persuade him (I assume he) that this is a bad idea, but he is being quite aggressive and demanding about reinstating his preference for having no title division.
 * He's also making no doubt valid points about article length but I am worried that I'm going to find my slow, detailed but hopefully relevant work building up these pages dealt with in a rather arbitrary fashion. I'd like to see a bit of patience and balance applied.
 * At the end of the day the History of Worcestershire page is a quite low traffic page, compared with Worcestershire for instance so I think doing things slowly is ok. Jim Killock (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the specific edit / diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Worcestershire&diff=prev&oldid=868362387 Jim Killock (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Lehrterstrasse, Kudpung.

Unfortunately Winged Blades of Godric has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"This is draftifiable stuff. Non-working references; weirdly complex (autotranslated??) sentences and unsourced paragraphs."

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

&#x222F; WBG converse 12:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Shall I remove your Reviewer, and Autopatrolled flags now, or shall we muse over it until I have finished the article? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove the flags and I will see you at AN. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with you? Got out of bed the wrong side this morning? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have the autopatrolled hat on and 18 hours after creation, 2 of the 5 references are null. One is reliable enough and two are to the same piece which is quasi-reliable. Vast portions are un-sourced. The single sentence over this section is what I described as weirdly complex. Notability is not very evident, till now.
 * These are all issues that shall be screened at NPR.
 * I might have tagged the article and moved on but I generally un-review autopatrols (which are not upto the mark) and let them note my concerns. And, in case you believe that my actions were egregiously bad, feel free to ask for outsider-opinion of my comments and un-review. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * About time you wrote some articles yourself. And get your math right. I moved the article from my user space less than five hours ago. Stop stalking my edits - that's room for harassement. Go do something useful for a change, like smartening up User:Winged Blades of Godric/The rise and fall of a Wikimedian--Paid editing and Governments so that it can finally be published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , meh. If you think that I am stalking your edits, AN is that-away. At any case, five hours or whatever is not a small amount of time. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * About time you wrote some articles yourself. And get your math right. I moved the article from my user space less than five hours ago. Stop stalking my edits - that's room for harassement. Go do something useful for a change, like smartening up User:Winged Blades of Godric/The rise and fall of a Wikimedian--Paid editing and Governments so that it can finally be published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , meh. If you think that I am stalking your edits, AN is that-away. At any case, five hours or whatever is not a small amount of time. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Op-ed
You probably have noticed I moved the content to User:Kudpung/Blog per the discussion you had with Pine. I would like to see it in issue 12 if possible. Maybe a new title: "Suppose they gave a war blog and nobody came?" ☆ Bri (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry -  no  time, no  energy. I've spent  a lot  of time on  this month's issue. Can't do any  more. You're welcome do  do  what  you  like with it. FYI . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will move it to Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion for issue 12 and putting my title on it. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Whatever you think best. This is going to be a meagre issue anyway, Deadline is expired in 4 hours, and you didn't extend the publishing time just to wait on more content. There's nothing from .  And I certainly don't see anyone suddenly filling all the columns at the last minute.  I think we all have to agree that our efforts over the past few months haven't worked out as expected despite a lot of help from . If it were up to me I would say include the article from DiplomatTesterMan and then get the issue out tomorrow or at the latest on the 28th, otherwise the next one, if here is one, won't be out until well into the first week or even the second week  of January what will all the upcoming holidays, and I really don't have time to contribute anymore. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Phra Wimondhammaphan
Hi Kudpung. Would you be willing to evaluate the suitability of ? The creator has a COI. I don't see anything on Google, but I can't understand Thai. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , There is hardly likely  to  be a COI -  the monk  is dead. However, there is a possible COPYVIO from  https://pantip.com/topic/38272842, but  it  looks very  likely this may  have been lifted from  the Wikipedia article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe COI isn't the right term – the author is a disciple of the monk. That was written after the article and probably by the same person who write the article. This is far from anything I would be able to judge notability on. Do you think the monk is notable? —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 12:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)