User talk:Kudpung/Archive Oct 2010

Finnhorse terror!!
If you're still up for a major c/e task, Finnhorse now contains almost everything it will, or at least any large additions aren't probably carried out anymore. Pitke (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's looking very  good already. A lot of well known experienced Wikipedians have contributed. Perhaps you  should consider nominating  it for GA;--Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh thanks, I'm so glad to hear that :) Apparently Dana boomer is having a GA look on it someday soon. Pitke (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dana eh? She already reviewed one of my  GAs and passed it. One thing  you  can  be sure of, is when she has finished with  it and passed it,  it will  be almost  FA quality. She doesn't  miss a trick, and most importantly, she chips in and helps with  the editing. She's also  now an admin  and I voted for her on  her RfA. Good luck! --Kudpung (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging
I think it works in reverse too, I checked your contributions and you have a lot of time adding tags, but not improving articles... So please instead of just shaming articles, you spend time improving them.... --90.213.158.60 (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because I spend an hour or so per day  checking  new pages.  However, a genuine close look  at  my  edits will  see that  I  do  in  fact  do  the very  contrary  of what  you  suggest. Generally, the pages I don't  feel  obliged to  improve are the ones the creators left  in  a mess. The vast  majority of my  edits are in  articles I  created myself, translations from other languages, and contributions to discussions on  Wikipedia policy development and improvement - precisely 84.76%. Tagging  accounts for only  15.24%, and less than  half of these tags have anything  to  do  with the maintenance of articles in  need of attention  or deletion. I  suggest  you spend some time reviewing  the edit  counts of the real  drive-by  artists, many  of whom I  actually  revert. If you  are genuinely  concerned, and I  think  you are, perhaps you  would like to  help  out  on  some of these thankless maintenenace tasks.--Kudpung (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

GM6001
re.: 06:23, 4 October 2010 Kudpung I added some more words relevant to the descriptive backgd. and a conjecture about the evolving environment; never the less... Letter boxes seem to be a more than less of pay as you go proposition but many entries are designed with Wikipedia collaborative input to back-link here as ec:3.4.24.83. Here in this enzyme-related article is a stub Category:EC 3.4.24 where thinking it would redirect from Category:Enzymes internally is a paradoxical property of GM6001 more or less about missing any parameters non-implemented mentioned, in references to the GM6001 page the way it is derived and not self-engineered while not giving that appearance (ACS membership etc.) though, by that MCB pages style listed on my user: page userbox Molecular & Cellular Biology WikiProject could be than derived a more polished final product, potentially never the less is a valid contribution.Emissrto (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I never doubted for a moment  that  it  is a valid contribution  to  the encyclopedia; I  just  pointed out  that the article does not  provide any  indication about  what  it  is, and any  scientific jargon  is over my  head, and that  of most  of our  readers. Please see WP:jargon. Perhaps you  could start  the article with  something  like: X is an enzyme that...' regards, --Kudpung (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP: Northants
Hi Kudpung just to let you know some Northamptonshire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release (which I never herd of until today) which can be seen here. It just advises to make some Northants articles better and I'm currently working on Northamptonshire which is coming along nicely, best Likelife (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yeah, so have a bunch of Worcs ones that I'm working through. When I'm done I'll chip in. Deadline is 10 October. --Kudpung (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN for Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)
Hello. In case you didn't notice, the GAN process was started for the article Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio). It can be found here. I would appreciate any comments you can make in addition to what is already there. In particular, there is question on whether mentioning the school colors in the lead is excess detail. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jon. For some reason  I had indeed missed the GAN, and it  was picked up  very  quickly  by  another reviewer. Never mind. I  have gone through  his/her initial summary and concur on  the points they  have highlighted. I actually  feel  the lead section  to  be too  long in  several  aspects, including  the colours. I  also  think  that   the main  body  of the article goes  into  far more detail  than is strictly  necessary  for a school article. However, it  does reflect  thorough research  on  your  part and there is generally  no harm i  leaving  it  in,  and as long  as it  meets the citeria for prose and sources, that's fine. It's worth  considering  however whether or not  such  precise detail  such  as on  all  the courses offered, and the bell times, are necessary, but  that's up  to  you  and the reviewer. The only  single real disadvantage is that  the bigger an article gets, the more it  is exposed for things to  rectify, and links to  checks. An  example of a school GA that passed at  GA without  a single correction  being required is at Malvern College (college in  BE   generally  means high  school, not  university). It's probably  the bare minimum  in  scope for a school GA, but  it demonstrates that  size isn't  everything. If you  need some help  meeting  the reviewer's requirements or seriously  rewording  longer passages of text, don't  hesitate to  let me know, otherwise, I  don't  generally  barge  in when the main  article developer(s) and the reviewer have already  entered into  a close relationship. A few more tweaks and your article most  certainly  will  pass even the most  severe reviewer's assessment. I  hope this helps. BTW, I've left  a note on  the article talk  page about  FUr  for school logos.  --Kudpung (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For what it's worth, I didn't list all the classes (there are about 200); I mentioned what I felt were noteworthy and different, (i.e. the electives), which is what the school guidelines encourage.  Most of the high school articles I had to go by were pretty bare in terms of what kind of classes were available or even somewhat unique.  I also saw comments from international readers that were unfamiliar with the entire structure and curriculum of an American high school.  Even the FA articles of high schools (there aren't many) seem far more focused on athletics or extracurriculuar accomplishments and awards than on what kinds of courses are available.  The "bell schedule" actually was directly borrowed from Plano Senior High School, though I'll be the first to say that article shouldn't be THE standard since it got FA way back in 2006 and FA standards have come a ways since then.
 * I'm not concerned about an article being big for the sake of being big, I'm concerned about it being thorough and very few school articles are thorough. About the closest FA I can find is Amador Valley High School, which is about the same size as the Roosevelt article (actually slightly larger).  While it has a much smaller academics section, it has a much larger extracurriculuar section (note it also includes the general day schedule).  In many ways it's simply organized differently (like arts are listed at that article as part of extracurricular activities while I listed them at Roosevelt as part of the curriculum).  AVHS also does not have a campus or facilities section, while Plano Senior High School has it as part of the history section.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All quite true, which  I  haven't criticised,  only  pointed out as you  suggested. I  just  made the suggestions from  my  point  of view as someone who  works on  and writes hundreds of school articles here. There are no  fundamental  differences between UK and USA schools. Any  differences are generally in  the national curricula and the kind of university  entrance exams. (and perhaps the fact  that  the Uk is one f the last  western style countries to  insist  that  all  pupils wear school  uniform -  and beacuase of this, 'colours' is indeed a very  well  known term in  the UK). What  makes school  articles different  is the ammount  of focus depending  on how much  can be written on  each  a school. Hanley Castle High School, for example, has a long  history  section  because the school  is  700 years old. A modern neighbourhood schjol  built in  2005 won't  have any  history to  report. There may  be some truth  in  the idea that  US  schoos place more emphsis on  sport  than  in  the UK, but Malvern College for example has spwaned may  of the greatest  cricketers ever. For the article I  work  on,  I  te,nd deliberately  to  leave aout  any  cnted that  readers would be better off getting  from  the school  brochure. Courses and schedules tend to  get  changed frequently,  whereas in  my  experience, many Wikipedia editors rarely  go  back  and constantly  update articles -  but  they  are probably  the SUAs.--Kudpung (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh absolutely; school articles, like city articles, are going to vary greatly simply due to size and age. In terms of updating articles, every article has to deal with that to some degree; the best articles are the ones who have dedicated editors who keep it up-to-date.  Since school articles have enrollment data, that pretty much guarantees updates almost every year, though in all honesty they aren't necessary.  Unless there has been a drastic change in a school, very little changes year-to-year, even enrollment (they could stand to be updated every few years and still be pretty accurate).  The course selections have been pretty stable at least in the last 10+ years at Roosevelt, which is why I included them, though I tried to be more general in describing them where I could.  Much of the data I chose to leave out seemed more unstable or temporary.  While there is a website, the school's online course registration guide gives far more detail than is on the article (the printed Roosevelt course catalog is 132 pages long), so I was pretty happy it got summarized into several paragraphs! :)  I think the reason athletics tend to get more emphasis in the US school articles is simply because they are the most visible aspects; there are tons of outside sources on high school athletics, mostly the local paper.  That said, another reason is that most editors don't know where to go for academic info or aren't interested in that aspect (sports can be way more exciting!), so it just gets neglected.  Indeed, the Roosevelt article's Academics section previously was a short paragraph while Athletics at one point had several subheadings.  --JonRidinger (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In the UK there is far less cultural  emphasis of playing ball  sports for one's school  or university -  not  even soccer,  which  is of the course the UK national  sport. --Kudpung (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bourne Westfield Primary School
Hi Kudpung. As you will see, I've tried to go along with the decision to merge, and have carefully merged the school article into the Bourne, Lincolnshire article. However if you look at my comments on the talkpages of both articles, you'll see that there's a problem. Firstly, the Bourne article was already too full up, and secondly that overload puts all the newly merged material at risk of instant deletion by the Bourne article's regular editors. Due to this situation, I have also userfied the whole article into Brunnian's userspace so that something may be retrievable if the school article gets entirely deleted from mainspace.

It has been suggested to me that I do a deletion review, but the instructions on that page tell me that I must discuss it with you first. Sorry to bother you with this, but I hope we can sort this out quickly. What worries me is that the decision to merge doesn't fit the consensus in the final section of the original discussion. Two said merge, two said keep, and I intended to say, well if you must delete then I'll have to accept merge. But ideally (as in my previous comment on that page) I wanted to keep since I was editing the thing. Perhaps I was trying too hard to be polite and keep the peace, and my wording was misleading?

Either way, the merge isn't going to work. Even if I had cut the article right down to the paragraph on the archaeological site only, it would still have been unacceptable in an already overloaded Bourne article. The merge also unbalances the Bourne article, because if we added even a small paragraph on each Bourne school to balance the new merged content, the overloaded Bourne article could not bear it. --Storye book (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * HI Storye book. Our policies, instructions, and guidelines can at times be complex, hard to interpret. and even daunting. Indeed, you do not need at all to take this matter up with me. The instructions at deletion review clearly state that any issues that you consider unresolved or incorrectly judged, should be dscussed with the closing administrator. However, although you are an established an experienced editor, I'll try here to explain in simpler terms how some of these processes work, because it might be one of the first times that  you have been involved with a slightly more contentious issue. For ease of reference, do follow any wikilinks I have provided in this message.


 * The closing administrator is neutral and  has not taken part in the deletion debate, and whose closing rationale is expected to be objective. This is born out by the fact that  admins will often even make a close that  is contrary to their own feelings, or not how they  would have voted themselves  in the discussion. Their task is simply to weigh up the facts and arguments that have been presented, and measure where the consensus lies at the end of the seven days (or relisting). Contrary to what  some believe, Wikipedia debates are never (or should never be) entirely concluded on the basis of a tally of the keep, delete, merge, support, or oppose !votes (and I expect you've often wondered why every time Wikipedians write the word vote, they  precede it with an exclamation mark: !). The closer will have carefully read all the comments, reviewed the article in great  detail, verified that  all the sourced references are appropriate and conform exactly to the rules, and that  the article is of a sufficiently serious and appropriate nature to be included in any encyclopedia.


 * I nominated the article for WP:AfD because I had sufficient reason to believe that it did not, or would not be able to comply with our policy on the notability of primary schools, but also in the knowledge that an AfD will often stimulate a concentrated effort to rescue the article. I could have flagged the article with a Speedy Deletion request or a time delayed Proposal for Deletion; instead however, I preferred to offer it for debate by the broader community. This was not an ad hoc decision - contrary to much of the flagging and tagging of articles that is often done by less specialised editors, schools articles are one of my main areas of participation in the Wikipedia project, and I have created, expanded, improved, and even rescued, hundreds of them. One of my other specialisations is, like yours, English settlements, for which I also created and manage a dedicated Wikipedia project. and when considering expanding or merging anything to a geographic article, THIS essay I wrote may also be of help, however, with your experience and the exceptionally high quality of your articles, it might very likely just be confirming what you already know.


 * The Bourne Westfield Primary School deletion debate brought up many interesting arguments. Indeed, some of the protagonists for 'keep' are some of my closest  administrator friends and colleagues on the Wikipedia. However, many Wikipedians are split into two camps: inclusionsts and deletionists, (I am somewhere in the middle), and It's always a good idea to look up the user pages of the people you are dealing with as it may help understand their rationale, and how best, in consequence,  you can agree, or disagree, or agree to disagree with them. We are generally all here for one purpose: that  of creating an encyclopedia, although many single use editors tend to forget that  they  are not supposed to be writing for themselves, promoting their friends or businesses, or favourite band or film star, or defending a personal mission or popular cause of some kind. The undeniable facts are, in my opinion, that  the Bourne Westfield school article is largely comprised of trivia of local interest only, the sources mostly do not comply with our rules, and however encyclopedic the article may or may not be, the school's notability is not sufficiently demonstrated, and it does not therefore present adequate grounds for making an exception to the general policy concerning primary schools or following that strange, ambiguous, and controvesial policy of ours at WP:IAR. In my opinion, the closing admin made a perfectly correct judgment in weighing up the consensus and recommending the way to go.  Regarding the merge itself, I agree that it creates unduly detailed content about a minor school in a short article about an equally minor settlement - the point being that the locality is not famous or notable because it hosts a school that  is or is not notable, in a way that  perhaps the towns of Malvern, Gordonstone, Eton, Harrow, or Bromsgrove are. And finally, and most importantly on schools, when you have read through the links  have provided, THIS essay will sum it up perfectly for you and help you make your final conclusions to how you next proceed.


 * On a personal note, most of us have had our articles hacked to death and even deleted. I admire your tenacity and dedication, and I sincerely hope that  whatever the outcome, that  you will not abandon the Wikepdia in a fit of emotion as do some of our colleagues, and that you will continue to channel your skills in research and prose into the creation and improvement of  more exiting articles, such as your excellent B-class articles on Hampton-on-Sea and Herne Bay Pier which I strongly feel you should consider nominating for WP:GA review, and your biographies, and perhaps also join in with some of the more tedious, semi- administrative tasks with which we need so much help, especially on monitoring WP:BLP articles and policy, and of course, schools :)  Regards,  --Kudpung (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind help, and the huge effort which you have made above, to explain. It is much appreciated.  I have decided to sit back and wait and leave this for a bit, to see what happens. As you know, I have also userfied the article to Brunnian's userspace, so that the data will remain accessible after deletion of the article in mainspace.  However, if other editors want to pursue this matter of preserving the data in mainspace more urgently, they have my support.  I have spent a lot of time on this, and now must do other things.  I'll copy this to KeithD.--Storye book (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

One source tag
I noticed in the Malcolm Arnold Academy article that you had removed the tag with this edit even though the article still only has one reference. I was wondering what the rationale was behind this, and if maybe I have been using the tag incorrectly. Thanks. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Narthring. No, you can rest  assured that  you  haven't misunderstood the use of the tag  at all, and I  look  forward to  your continued monitoring  of new school articles. I  might  have removed the tag inadvertently when I had reworked the article offline and pasted what  was left  back  into its article space. However, secondary  schools, especially  state schools in  the native English  speaking  countries served by  the en.Wiki, are deemed to  be de facto notable anyway, and their own website is enough  to  prove their existence. Any  unsourced controversial  claims and peacock  terms should of course be either reliably  sourced or immediately  deleted. Malcom Arnold is a brand new school, and the article will  remain  a stub for a while until  more information  about it is built up. It's listed as a stub, so  watchful members of the WP:WPSCHOOLS will  add bits to it  as time goes by. A major source will  be its first  Ofsted report,  and as such,  school  article editors don't  need reminding  that  it needs expanding. One thing  that  we constantly  need to  be on  the look  out for, is that  school  articles are very  susceptible to  vandalism by  the pupils. --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I've recently started patrolling some of the new pages backlog and have been tagging pages with  that only had one source.  I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't committing a faux pas and continue using it incorrectly;  it wouldn't have been the first time.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 05:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be the first  time I  made one either ;) Some editors accuse me of being  a drive-by  artist, but  I  do  nearly  all  my  tagging  manually - and  Malcolm Arnold Academy is proof  that  I  almost  always stop  to  improve what  I  can on  the fly. But  when I  have done 200 or 300 in  a day, although  a 1% error is perfectly  tolerable, they  always seem to  be the ones the extreme inclusionists find.  Don't  get  despondent  if they  do  it  to  you  too. I'm  glad you're working  on  the NPP backlog -  that's where I  usually  work  from  too  and where the greatest  help  is needed. Most  of the articles languishing there are the ones the other NP patrollers didn't  know what  to  do  with. Unfortunately, if those older new pages aren't  patrolled within 30 days, they  fall  off the cliff as 'patrolled' however bad they  are. At least  if they  get  tagged for something, and have stub templates added (even a generic one), we can keep  tracks  on  them. The other advantage is that  if they  are really  poor, have been there for 30 days without  a significant  edit, and doing  a WP:BEFORE  doesn't  help, they  can  usually  be uncontentiously  WP:PRODed and will  disappear automatically  after a further 7 days. If  you  need any  help  in  those  areas,  or a second opinion, don't  hesitate to  ask. --Kudpung (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hollie Greig
I have just created a new article called Hollie Greig. I hope it is allowed to remain. I have looked at the reason for the deletion of another page with the same title in April, whose author is unknown and not connected to me in anyway. I don't think the same criteria for deletion apply to what I have put. I would appreciate your help in creating an appropriate article.

Hollie was awarded criminal compensation when there was no crime number recorded by the Police. She was considered a credible witness, but her allegations were ignored. Her mother was sectioned, Hollie was returned by social workers to the man she accused of abuse and then her mother was found to be perfectly sane. These legal precedents should make her a 'notable' person. If that isn't enough, her home in Shropshire was searched by Scottish Police in June and items removed on the basis of a fictitious warrant. As the situation concerning who issued the warrant and its 'loss' by Grampian Police is ongoing, I have omitted to mention it until the situation can be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkinghorse (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you're too  late, it  was deleted  within seconds of being  posted. In  any  case,  the deletion rationale would have  been identical to  the previous deletion  debate. See  these rules for starters: WP:BLP1E and  WP:BLPNAME, and I  have to  agree most  strongly  with  those policies. --Kudpung (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my 3RR warning
While I am aware that I reverted Ridgewood High School (Florida) more than 3 times, I was not going to leave that entry in the article. It was an attempt at adding in a vanity entry that did not belong in the article, thus sneaky vandalism, as you yourself removed it when you came across it. I have no problems with any of my edits to that article or my interactions with Happykingdom123. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem is, that 3RR wars that  go into  a fourth  or more revert, trigger alarms in  the software and can lead to  an automatic block. So  even if the 3RR war between you and HappyKingdom  was just friendly  fooling  around, you  could both end up  getting  blocked. Please do  not  underestimate the amount  of automation  that  runs the Wikipedia.  Take care, and happy  editing.--Kudpung (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are aware that Gogo is well aware of that, right? He has close to 100k edits, and is a sysop.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 23:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfectly aware. So what?--Kudpung (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Automatic block? No, I don't think so.  There are very few situations that trigger bot-based blocks or edit filter blocks and 3RR isn't one of them.  I don't quite understand why you think Happykingdom123 and I were "friendly fooling around".  Far from it.  Well, either way, I don't think I broke 3RR due to the circumstances involved, but you're entitled to your own opinion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Automatic in so far as an admin  can automatically and very  quickly  intervene to  hang  a block  without  much further ado - but  you  don't  need me to tell you  how to  use the tools ;) Edit wars do  show up  however, and for a few hours it  was the number one on the alert feed. I  tend to  interpret the rules that  even if it  is a question  of fighting  spam  or vandalism, the admin  or experienced editor should stop warring  before they  get  their feet wet, and should perhaps find another solution -  in your case, blocking. But  the rules a re not  graven in  stone, and as you rightly  say, we are all entitled to  our opinion. I think I  did the right  thing  by  warning  you  both quickly, before I  looked deeper into  the background. It  was your comment  that  you  don't  have any  problems with HappyKingdom that  let me to  believe it  was a case of friendly  rivalry. No harm done.--Kudpung (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'So what?' Because you appear to be treating them as if they are unaware of said things.  Given their experience here, it is rather insulting to treat them as if they are.  Especially templating them.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 09:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DTTR. Also, you can't just claim my response to you is 'bordering on civility and PA'.  It isn't, and is in fact no where close.  I didn't insult you, all I said is that your own treatment of Gogo could be taken as insulting, given that you are treating him as if he is unaware of things like that, given his experience here.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 22:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this; you don't template an experienced admin, and don't treat them as if they are inexperienced, and I won't warn you that that could be taken as insulting.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no bait. If you're going to treat an experienced admin as if they were inexperienced, I'm going to tell you that could be taken as insulting.  Don't do that, and I won't tell you, it's that simple.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Arnold Academy
Please can you explain your revert of my edit to the Malcolm Arnold Academy regarding religion? I sourced my edit and added a note on the talk page. You, sir, appear to have done neither. 78.150.126.44 (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed I wasn't logged on. Knowing who to reply to will no doubt assist you. Yorkshire Phoenix [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|22px]] [[Image:Flag of Yorkshire (Flag Institute).svg|God's own county|22px]] 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, for a moment I  thought  you were a member of our WP:NORTHANTS  or our WP:WPSCHOOLS  project. I  did indeed spend over two  hours  researching  and considerably   expanding the article, as the page history  will  confirm. However,  being  such  a new school there isn't much that  can be said about  it yet. However, I  did take the article from  this  to  THIS. Nevertheless, do  feel  free to look  the article over, check  the  sources for accuracy, and correct  it or expand it  as necessary. If anything  is wrong, feel  free to  contact  to  school or its governing  body to  get  an update for factual  accuracy.  You  might  also  find this useful.--Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've spoken to Dr Stephen Partridge, the Diocesan Director of Education for Peterborough Diocese, and he confirmed to me that Malcolm Arnold Academy is a Church of England school and is being marketed as such: the Bishop of Peterborough himself sits on the Governing Body. Yorkshire Phoenix [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|22px]] [[Image:Flag of Yorkshire (Flag Institute).svg|God's own county|22px]] 08:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tyrone Noonan
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tyrone Noonan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being or having been member of a notable band indicates importance/significance. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot  find from  where you  took  the above policy  statement,  and if it  wern't  for the link  to  his self-published source, the article could still  take a WP:BLPPROD. However, according  to  WP:BAND: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article, you  may  well  be right  about  his notability, but  for another reason. Nevertheless, avaiable  WP:RS,  in  strict  conformity  with  the policy, appear to  very  borderline indeed..--Kudpung (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The threshold for A7 is merely "importance", not notability. Feel free to redirect the article, PROD it, or bring it to AfD. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A7 always had a big grey  area concerning  importance vs notability,  and it  really  needs a rethink  one of the days. For the time being, we're concerned with  generally  cleaning  up  the huge backlog  of BLP  issues as best  we can. I'll  keep Tyrone on  a watch list and if it  does't  develop by  the and of the month  I'll  PROD it.--Kudpung (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean up
Hello, how can we improve the page Guido Guerrini (traveler) where you placed a cleanup template? I know my English is quite bad so I'm not able to do anything better. Thank you. --Antenor81 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ :) --Kudpung (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you ;) --Antenor81 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Florida mouse
As far as I know, Usb10 is still reviewing, and, true, a request for a second opinion was made but only unofficially on the review page. The second opinion template was never installed. The first reviewer is responsible for closing the review. Usb10 apparently is still about and has not left Wikipedia. I freshened the Florida mouse prose here and there and entered some new pics. I don't believe there's a time limit on a review. I haven't received any communications from Usb10 so in this case it might be best to simply wait for Usb10 to finish the review. The article meets the good article critieria: the prose is fine, it follows MOS layout, it's broad in coverage with a focus on the main aspects of the topic, it's neutral, stable, etc. The article should satisfy the general reader. You could enter your review on the article review page. This might give Usb10 some additional insights and motivation to finish the review. If you have recommendations, make a list or revise yourself - I don't have ownership issues with the article but welcome collaboration from others. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A second opinion was correctly requested by USB10 by changing the GA nomination template on the article's talk page. No template is supposed to be placed etc. on the review page. A bot automatically updates GAN which is where I saw the request. The request was then withdrawn by USB10 after a second opinion was given.


 * USB10 is still the reviewer. I hinted at taking over, but they didn 't reply. Best.   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you've stepped in  now. Thanks for taking  the initiative. I  was going to  do  something  myself, but  I  can see that  it's now in  good hands. BTW the comments you  made on  the pics are identical to  what  I  would have made too :) --Kudpung (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Susanne, Diderot has kindly agreed to  take over,  and appears to  have made some accurate comments. Good luck, i'm sure it  will pass.--Kudpung (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops. I see my additional comments on the review page were interpreted as taking over the review. I can see why you might think that, but I didn't mean to-- they were just my opinion on the pic issue. I would be happy to finish the review, but I don't have USB10's permission.  So I'll work it out with them and one of us will finish this thing up.  Best.   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, we all  know your offer to  continue the review was made in  good faith. However, you should preferably  get  a green light  from  USB. Apparently  he appears to  be rather busy  in  RL so  I  suggest  that  if you  have no  response after 24 hours you  can take it  to  be his tacit  agreement. In  anyway, the editors of Florida mouse can't  be expected to  be kept  waiting  any  longer for a final  judgement, and if they  follow your recommendations this can happen  quite quickly. I  have run  checks, and although  photos of the creature exist  on  various websites, there is nothing  that  will  pass our free or fair use criteria. --Kudpung (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, user USB is still around and has been editing  the Wkipedia up  until  an hour ago.--Kudpung (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim Burkhalter
Thanks for catching my error in tagging the page on Tim Burkhalter. I missed those references, and I should have noticed them. My apologies! Ms. Citizen (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems -  it's something  anyone can  miss :) --Kudpung (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Chiang Mai Flower Festival
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiang_Mai_Flower_Festival to see how this is NOT unambiguous copyright infringement. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts. --Kudpung (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

?
Just wondering what the message on my talk page was all about? Did you send it to the wrong person, or did I do something I haven't realised? Thanks, Tom (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Tom, wrong talk  page -  that's what  happens when people don't  sign thier rude posts ;) My  most  humble apoplogies. I  have removed it. Thanks for pointing  it  out.--Kudpung (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:User_talk:69.181.249.92
Ummm.. IP's can't use twinjle, right? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's right - I didn't  think. I've noticed you  doing  a lot  of good work; Keep  it  up, especially  at  New Page Patrol -  we have a huge backlog,  and after 30 days they  default to  'keep'  even if they   re very  nasty.--Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicaragua
Hi Kudpung. About Nicaragua, thanks. I'll move the post there. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sharks (rock band)
Hi. I have declined the proposed deletion of Sharks for the reasons I give on the discussion page of that article. I have, however, edited the article in the light of your comments. WoodyJoe (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

advice
hi since you seemed helpful and i dont want to draw attention to this yet can you tell me if you think this is appropriate thanks Aisha9152 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is grossly inappropriate. Whatever you do, don't react to it. Ignore it. If any action is required I'll look into it as an uninvolved third party.--Kudpung (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * you dont need to give me talkbacks i am watching this page. anyway i looked and that user seems to do that kind of stuff all the time, they are even proud of it on their user page. im not sure what to do since everyone must know right? Aisha9152 (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

oops, wrong name! recreating as Online Legal Marketplace
Thanks for the very good tips and suggestions! Eclipsed (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder about new page patrolling
Dear Kupdung,

Adding ''This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.'' while someone is writing an article as you did within 2 mins of an edit on Raymond Lister a new page being worked on is not very helpful. This kind of problem can be avoided by not tagging articles being worked on and perhaps by patrolling from the back of the new pages list as is recommend. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the reminder. You are most  welcome to  help  out on  New Page Patrol, and perhaps also  help  us to encourage new users to  prepare their articles in their  user space first ;) --Kudpung (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure of the relevance of your mentioning of BLP in an article on someone who died in 2001 (as the article indicates) but if you need any help with any aspects of WP:policy feel free to ask and good luck with your vast quantity of speedy tagging (Msrasnw (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Perhaps I should point  out  that  there is a difference between 'speedy tagging'  and 'speedy  fixing'  I  don't  do  'speedy  tagging', any more than  you  don't  mass produce speedy stubs. This isn't  the first  time you've come here complaining, or the first  time you  picked on other experienced editors. Please don't  come to  my  talk  page again, I  won't  take your WP:BAIT.--Kudpung (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ibrahim Haski

 * Your action is completely wrong. He isn't living people :) Takabeg (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid your interpretation  of the WP:MOS is completely  wrong. Please include the detail  in  the first  line of any biographical  articles you  create,then no one will  misunderstand your articles. If you  need help, please do  not  hesitate to  ask.--Kudpung (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work
Thanks for cleaning up after my stubbing with Category:Living people. I'll add it to the remainder of the stubs I'm working on. Cheers! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Gagandeep Kaur
Hello. I'm Sainsf. I'm currently developing this article and request you that it shouldn't be deleted now. Thanks, --Sainsf&lt;^&gt; (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine - i  was actually  in  the process of removing  the tag becaus I  saw you  had started working  on  it  again. It  was only  a PROD  anyway, and you  could have removed it  yourself as soon  as you  add one reference. But  please develop it quickly  before someone else deletes it :) --Kudpung (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! Well, it would be very kind if you can provide any reference for the article; I mean you please try to find a source from which Kaur's biography can be known. You aren't forced, do as you like. --Sainsf&lt;^&gt; (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't  really  know where to  look. If you  can't  find any - and you  are the expert on  Indian  stuff - I'm  quite lost  I'm  afraid . --Kudpung (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Safari
Thats your problem. Sorry but I'm a of airplaneman, but GLoo doesn't work in Safari. Download Firefox (or Chrome if it's supported) and iGloo should work. :)-- Talk tome (Intelati) 06:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)l
 * Golly, go back  to  using  FFox? I  gave up  with  it at  least  a year  ago  because it  won't  handle a lot of UTF-8 non Roman font  I  use, and it  wouldn't  display  the images on  Wikipedia pages ! Maybe they've fixed it  in  some recent  releases -  I'll  give it a whirl. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I personaly like Google Chrome. Faster and overall better. :)-- Talk tome (Intelati) 15:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead information
I wasn't the one that asked the question, I simply had to deal with some of the consequences. It was the wrong answer: the lead summarizes the article, and all information in the lead should appear in the article body.&mdash;Kww(talk) 07:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Kevin, It depends on the scope, breadth, length, and overall  focus of the article. In  one of our flagship  biographies, the Featured Article on  Emmy Noether,  for  example, the lead is very  long. So  long  in  fact  that  the next  section  is entitled 'Biography' which  theoretically  would be a redundant  term since the article is a biography. Hence this section  carries a repeat  of the dob, (but  not  of the dod). Her death  is a dedicated sub-section  at  the end of the long  biography.
 * User:Elizium23 points out, quite correctly, that  another FA on the other hand, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, does not  repeat  the dob. And you  are the only  one telling  us all  that  90% of our 650,000 biographies are wrong.
 * Nobody can know all  the rules, policies, and guidelines for writing  Wikipedia articles -  these amount  themselves to  over a thousand or more pages. I  take a pride in  my  knowledge of  Wikipedia biography requirements because its's one of my  main  areas of specialization. Please provide us with  a link to  where it is stated quite categorically  that  the date of birth  must  be repeated again  in the main  body  text  of every  biography - it  may  be in a deeply  buried RfC somewhere and was never taken into  policy, or it may  be a recommendation  in  an essay - even I  may  have missed something,  and I'm  ready  to  learn.  In  the past  you  have said "Certainly there are situations that our guidelines and policies don't address precisely and situations that weren't anticipated," Remember, German  graveyards are full of motorists who insisted on  driving  by  the rules. But   whether the dob  should be repeated in  the body  text, is not  a hard and fast rule, and nothing  worth  dying  for.
 * The bottom line is, however, common  sense trumps all  rules,   and I  don't  intend lightly  to  be discouraged  from  trying  to  be a helpful, polite  Wikipedian.--Kudpung (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Go! Move! Shift!
I do hope that the AFD nom for the article on the Queensland School for Travelling Show Children is not motivated by anything other than misplaced deletionist urges ;-).

The school is small but especially significant as it caters for a very interesting community. The significance is well documented. Please assist in expanding the article (which you are, it seems, well placed to do) or leave it alone whilst I work on it. Silent Billy (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI I'm not  a deletionst and I  resent  the tone (WP:PA). Roughly half of the thousand or so daily new submissions get  deleted. Many of them beause they are insufficiently documented and  simply do not even come close to meeting the criteria. The rest  of them  because they  are blatant  gibberish  or nonsense. Somebody  has to  volunteer to  check  these entries - ( do  you?) as well  as finding  time to  write their own articles. When I have checked about 200 articles a day, I have passed about half of them, improved and rescued about 80 of them from the mess the  were in, tagged about 10 - 20 as being in need of further attention, deleted some complete rubbish, and perhaps suggested that 2 or 3 may possibly in need of consideration by the broad community for an eventual deletion or merging. That has hardly anything to do with  deletionism. If by 'well placed' you mean that  I have significant experience in schools in both real life and on the Wikipedia, you may be right. Otherwise, I have no more powers and no more access to resources than you do yourself, and thanks to  your complaint,  will not be offering any more help with it. (see Talk:Queensland School for Travelling Show Children).--Kudpung (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Allerta
Thanks for your help. I'm working on expanding it into a nice and proper article with not just one but multiple paragraphs!. I'm worried about notability but I figure this might be one of those cases where Wikipedia can help to make it notable. Really though, most open source fonts are not notable at all but no one attacks their presence here and I'm glad there are articles about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayavaron (talk • contribs) 02:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion is that all open source software (including typography), and free-to-use software are meritorious and deserve an article in the encyclopedia. It is nevertheless absolutely essential  that our policies concerning referenced sources are complied with. Do  consider drafting your articles in your WP:user space first  if you  are unlikely  to comply within the first  few minutes. Happy  editing! --Kudpung (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem with dissapearing information
Regarding Swedish Armed Forces and Military ranks of the Swedish Armed Forces: I have included information (with strong references to reports published by the Swedish Armed Forces) about the distribution of personnel vs rank as well as what military units Sweden has as of today. For the reader this is very useful information in order to get a picture of Swedish ranks and Armed Forces. However, it is being blanked out by User:80.217.89.69. Most of the times he blanks out everything without any comments, sometimes he makes claims that no one can verify. How do we deal with this? Regards, --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for asking  me for advice :) Repeat  your  message at the WP:EAR advice page, and one of us will examine it and take it  from  there. You'll  get  advice on  what  to  do, and the info  will  be visible to  any  other editors who  experience a similar problem in  the future.--Kudpung (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did as you said :) --Malin Lindquist (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Borovi4ok Userpage
Hi Kudpung, you have nominated my userpage for speedy deletion. do userpages actually have to meet "complexity requirements"? I simply need my userpage in case anybody wants to contact me, e.g. about my contributions to the English Wiki. regards, Borovi4ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borovi4ok (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have not  nominated your user page for deletion. Your user page is here: User:Borovi4ok.  For some reason, you  have created a second user page in  article space. That  is the one that  must  be deleted. Ask  me again  if there is anything  you  don't  understand :) --Kudpung (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanx for that :) Borovi4ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borovi4ok (talk • contribs) 13:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Talbot Baines Reed
Thank you for commenting on the peer review. I have no idea how a request to do this appeared on your talkpage. I have a feeling the bots are playing games; for example my click on your talkpage gave me the welcome "Hi, Edwardsbot..." I did suggest to User:Voceditenore that she took a look, and you have recently been in touch with her, so perhaps the wires got tangled somewhere? Anyway, no matter; your comments are much appreciated and will be acted on. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian. The name on my  talk page only  changes when you  enter edit mode. The software cannot  recognise who  is simply  browsing  a page. User:Voceditenore left  a talkback here (see above) I  don't know why, unless she picked my  name at  random  from  among  the list  of copyeditors. I  don't think I've ever communicated with  her before. Anyway  I  feel  honoured, and I'm  glad my  comments have helped.--Kudpung (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung. In case you didn't see my later comment on my talk page,here, I was responding to your message here. Perhaps, you meant to contact someone else? Best, the mad linguist, Voceditenore (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did see it. Sorry  I  couldn't  remember it  at  the time. I  saw Brian's post  and I  though  that  it might  have have been something  to  do  with  his work. We  bump  into  each  other occasionally  on music stuff -  such  as Elgar who  lived in  my  home town. On another note (pun?), I  know you  said a couple of years ago that  you  don't  have time to  use an extended set of tools, but  if you  would like to reconsider, I  would be most  happy  to  nominate.--Kudpung (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

John Percy (politician)
Hey, thanks for your note. I'm not sure he was notable beyond being leader, but for Canada that's generally enough. I'd have to dig around, but there's a couple of AfD's where the community decided to keep leader articles because they've been the leader. Being a leader of a political party in Canada isn't the same as the US. The leaders here wield a lot of more influence. Perhaps try an RFC? --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, because I  really  don't  know much  about  politics at  all,  so  I  just  go  strictly  by  the rules as they  stand at WP:BLP and WP:NOTABILITY. You are welcome to  try  an RfC but  you  would need to  do  a lot of research to  see if it's worthwhile and to  make a convincing rationale for your opening  gambit. In  The UK and Europe we're generally  very  strict and anyone who  has never been an MP  doesn't  get a look  in. At  local  level  a mayor of a large town is about  as low as we go. The workaround is to  see if they  have been reasonably  notable for something  else so  they  pass the Wikipedia  notability tests  by  accumulation. If you  come up  with  any ideas, please don't  hesitate  to  share them  with  me.--Kudpung (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we do articles one very Mayor, but not necessarily every councilor for the city council. I'll see what I can find. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * generally, to be notable enough  without  having  ever held a parliamentary  post, one would have to  have made as much  noise for decades, as for example did coal  miner Arthur Scargill, who  finally  founded his own party (which  has never won  a seat) in  1996.--Kudpung (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on my article on S. Somasegar
Kudpung,

Thank you so much for your amazing feedback on my article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Somasegar.

I was not sure how to write back to you. If this is the incorrect page, my apologies.

I've incorporated a lot of your feedback, including * added place and country of birth * added date of birth * cleaned up references so that URLs don't show up   * changed links with multiple references into "named" links so that they don't show up multiple times in references section * added The Overlake School board membership * added a redirect for Windows HPC Server to Windows HPC Server 2008 so that the reference on the page doesn't show up as red.

Would it be possible to help me with taking out the tag at the top that says, "[t]his page is a new unreviewed article."?

Thank you so much again.

NavMehta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navmehta (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Kudpung (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Which warning did I get wrong
Which warning did I get wrong ? VER Tott  21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Follow the link in  my  message. What  you  probably  didn't  notice (I do not see the same issues as the nominator, I do not see it as anything other than the summary of events) was that  the article is not  a biography  at all. It  is a totally  biased account that only highlights a couple of extremely  negative things about  the person's career. This kind of sensationalism  is for newspapers (the cheap  ones), but  it's not  the way  encyclopedia articles are written. The PROD rationale was exceptionally  well written and recognised the problem perfectly -  the admin  is one of the leading crafters of the policies that  run  this encyclopedia. I know it's not always easy  to  recognise a good article from  a bad one because the differences are often very  subtle,  but  it does come with  practice -  on  New Page Patrol for example, consider tagging  the easy stuff first, such as blatant nonsense, vandalism, and empty  pages,  and try  to  distance yourself from  the contentious stuff that  could earn you  some flak from  the big  guns. So a good tip  is to  check  out  the user page to  see who  you  are intending  to  tag,  and have a look  at  their edit  count. New Page Patrol  is indeed in  desperate need of help, particularly accurate tagging. A good place to  start  is from  the backlog, but with  all  due respects, perhaps you might  like to take time to  check  out our policies. There is an awful  lot to  learn and remember - WP:NPOV is a particularly hard one. Don't  worry though, it  only  took  me four years and 18,000 edits, and I  still  only  know about  half the rules:) Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - I thought I was doing what it told me to do on the page "Wikipedia:Proposed deletion" it says that you should let the person know by placing a I have removed the prod tag from, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it.  If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article.  Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion.  Thanks!  tag on their user talk page..  VER  Tott  06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the point I was really making is that  WSC is one of our most  experienced admins, and one of the most specialised policy  makers across the entire suite of Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects,  but fortunately he is also one of the nicest and most understanding admins we have have here,  while some other admins can get  quite shitty if you tread on  their toes ;) If you're going  to  do  a lot of New Page Patrol (while remembering that contrary  to  what  a lot of people believe, high  edit counts for tagging  stuff don't  earn us much  merit), you  might  wish  to  install the TWINKLE javascripts. This will  add extra buttons to  your Wikipedia tool bar which  will automate the process of notifying  users if you  CSD, PROD, or AfD their articles. It  will also  offer you  a drop-down menu of tags to  put  on  articles, and an automated CSD/PROD/AfD sytem at  one click  of a mouse. Most  importantly, it  also  offers several hundred other standard warnings too, that  you  can place on  users' talk  pages. These many warnings are templates that have been carefully worded by teams of Wikipedia project  members to  be as least offensive as possible. This takes the hard work  out of wondering  what  to  say, and running  the risk of sounding  aggressive. However, there are people who  take even those warnings as an insult and they  will  try  to  game the system and accuse you of being  in the wrong. It  happens all  the time! So  if you  do  decide to  use Twinkle, do  so  judiciously and with  great  caution. As always, bear in  mind the WP:AGF rule, and  don't  hesitate for a moment to  ask  me for help anytime.--Kudpung (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice - I will have a look at TWINKLE javascripts and if (or I suspect more likely when) I have any questions will ask. VER Tott  08:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry to hassle you with Talkback's, but I've got a reply to your problem with the NPP script. Usb10 Connected? 23:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong allegations
Sorry to bother you about this, but I'm very concerned and baffled about this whole issue. What's ultimately at stake here is not only this article, but how WP:BLP is interpreted in general with respect to notable and well-sourced allegations about public figures. Since you're arguing for endorsement of the deletion based on the quality of the arguments, and none of the pro-deletion arguments even referenced WP:BLP or any other specific section of WP:BLP nor any other policy, can you please answer the question I posted near the end of the current discussion? I just don't follow the argument for deletion at all, much less see it as a quality argument. Answering my question should be a big help in that regard. Also, I addressed the comment you made about my previous statement about consensus determination not determined entirely by participants. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't generally extend ongoing formal debates onto my talk page, however, as the person who initiated (but not posted) the Lance Armstrong AfD, I'm happy to address your first comment above. Our BLP policy at WP:BLP is inadequate. In all good faith in addressing the public figures policy, the work group who decided it failed to qualify exactly what (or who) a public figure is. I have been involved in the crafting of BLP policy for quite a while, and it is one of the points on my list of things to discuss through the normal channels of policy making and amending.
 * I have responded on the debate to your reply to my comment about your apparent change of heart on defending the consensus determination. Consensus, where there is one, is always determined entirely by participants - the closing admin just consolidates it  by summing it up in a concise closing rationale, much in the same way as a judge sums up, for the record, the verdict that  has been pronounced by the jury. In my opinion, admins are rarely very wrong (as opposed to those who attempt to do non-admin closures), and this entire Lance Armstrong issue has received an unusually large amount of attention from some of our most  learned sysops.
 * I won't be adding more to the drama this AfD and its revision have become. It's time to let it take its course. I will however analyze carefully the outcome, whatever it will be, as it will help in filling any loopholes in our policies. Whether I like the eventual decision or not is beside the point - I try, though not always 100% successfully, to remain objective. --Kudpung (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WorcesterCoatArms.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WorcesterCoatArms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This image is no longer orphaned. It  was inadevertently  removed  from  its page by  an editor   in  good faith. The edit  has ben reverted.--Kudpung (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall & Talk:Cambridge renaming
Hi Kudpung - a User (User:Floydian has proposed moving all places stated above and has caused some conflict your comments would be appreciated on the talk pages - I'm against it by the way. Likelife (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to say how silly this is talk:York has now been added to the list!. Likelife (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Silly? It's fatuous. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends in  an ANI or an ARBCOM for tendentious and disruptive editing.--Kudpung (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mater Maria Catholic College
Please do not remove sourced news. Please view Mater Maria talk page. ThanksEnidblyton11 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The item is unencyclopedic trivia. Please refer to policy.--Kudpung (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

quoting you

 * Good morning!
 * I'm working on an essay; it's gonna take a very long time to complete. But I am quoting you, so perhaps I should let you know: see User:Ling.Nut/Siege. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Global perspective
You do realize the nationality comment didn't originate with me, right? Another editor had done that count; I referenced back to his thread  Pur ple  back pack 89    02:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies -  I  had indeed not noticed,  please do  not  feel  offended. It  does not however change my  stance on  the core matter for debate,  and the way  the debates and/or discussions have been proposed. --Kudpung (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, could you link me to the diff for this "trans-pond cabal" stuff?  Pur ple  back pack 89    02:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mater Maria Catholic College
How dare you keep deleting an important part of the article. Please view the talk page if you wish to change the current consensus.Enidblyton11 (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Joe Burgess
Hi, I just want to let you know that Joe Burgess, an article that you tagged for BLPprod, now has a reference and the prod has been removed. If you believe that this article still doesn't meet notability requirements, feel free to nominate it for a traditional prod or AfD. J04n(talk page) 09:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, thanks ;) The main thing  is that  our policy  has been complied with, and it  avoids possible deletion  of what  might  be an admissible article. --Kudpung (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Imposter?...
Hi, I just saw this new user, User:Kudpung99 (I know that's a redlink), their contribs are here and having seen your username somewhere, I wondered if it was an alternate account of yours. I had a quick look at your user page and couldn't see anything about alternate accounts, so I assume it isn't and because you seem to have an unusual username I was wondering if they were trying to impersonate you or anything. Anyways just thought that I should let you know and if you want to do anything about it you can. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for pointing this out. It's definitely  nothing  to  do  with  me, but  I'll certqinly  look  into  it -  it  might  be the sock  of a detractor, but  there's probably  nothing  much  I can do  about  it otherwise. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of PC/Nametag Inc.
Hi, I have just recieved an email to notify me that you nominated the page PC/Nametag Inc. for speedy deletion stating that it is simply advertising the company itself, where as the purpose of the article is to give a history of the origins of the company and was very carfully written to do so. We feel that in creating this article we have not done anything that is outside the guidlines of wikipedia, infact if our page has been removed why is the likes of companies such as [the coca cola company] not removed as they do very much the same thing? I just find this rather confusing and a little clarification and advice for furture articles of this nature would be very useful for moving forward to ensure these errors do not occur again. Cheers and thanks in advance for the advice. Mrsox87 (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I did indeed nominate the article for speedy  deletion, and a senior, uninvolved editor (an administrator) reviewed the nomination, found it to  be in order, and deleted the article. The first thing to  do is to  follow the links in the nomination  notice at  User talk:Mrsox87. That is your talk page which, once you  have signed on  for a Wikipedia user account, you  should regularly  monitor for messages from  the administrators and other editors. If you had been following  your talk  page, you  may  have been able to protest the speedy  deletion, and at  least  state your case, or wait for the deletion  to  be debated by  the Wikipedia community  at  WP:AfD. The main thing  to  understand is that  Wikipedia is not  a trade directory where all  companies have a right  to  be listed. The idea being that we allow an article about  a company  if there is something really  notable that  can  said about  it and which  has encyclopedic value. I don't think your company  compares with the likes of CocaCola, Microsoft, General Motors, Cadbury's Cholcolate, or any other of the companies that  have impacted on  society and shaped the way  we live. In any case, the most important  policy  there is this one. Secondly, you should not  even be writing  an article about your company, or the company  your agency  represents - if the firm  is notable enough, someone else  will  suggest that  we should have an article about  it (see our rules at  WP:COI). I'm sorry about  all  this, but  those are the rules I'm  afraid.--Kudpung (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I think it’s highly unfair to delete an article about a company as you feel it hasn’t had as big an impact within society as a whole as some of the biggest companies in the world. Had you done your research yourself about the company in question you would have found that they have had a huge influence within their sector with the innovations mentioned in the article, however by your reasoning because the company reach is towards a niche audience rather than a broad audience it does not deserve to be contained within Wikipedia, despite content being neutral, containing citations, and was all correct information. So it feels as though the article was penalised as you may not have previously heard of the content, although I think you should ask yourself; after reading the article did you not learn something new that you may not have known before? At the end of the day the content was resourceful and informative with absolutely no sales pitch, about a company who is the biggest in their sector in Northern America, and that’s what Wikipedia is there for: information. You don’t know if I have a link to the company, just like you don’t know if anyone posting on other large companies are directly linked, however I see this as irrelevant as I am yet to see anything that says you can’t write about content that you are close to so long as it is done correctly (and if it exists please let me know). In regards to the appeal I know for now on to log into Wikipedia more regularly to check any messages I may have. Mrsox87 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved administrator, I looked at PC/NAMETAG Inc. (PCN) and I concur with the nomination and the deletion. The article did nothing but promote a company, and was deleted under WP:CSD. If, in fact, the company is actually influential and innovative, it should be no problem to find citations from reliable sources - independent of the company itself - to demonstrate its notability. Please click the individual links in the previous sentences, and also read WP:CORP. Nobody is targeting anyone or anything here, and nobody is saying the company isn't notable. What we're saying is that the article that was written was completely promotional and did not in any way assert or demonstrate why the company might be notable. If it is, great - let's get an article going. If it isn't, then it can't remain. One thing to note: just because a company exists doesn't make it notable. There are, in fact, millions of companies around the world; the vast majority of them do not have an article in Wikipedia. Frank  |  talk  15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Frank, thanks for the input. It would be useful if I could get an outline as to what exactly was wrong with the article so I know when making future contributions, as I did try to follow the rules as closely as possible. Mrsox87 (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said above, it did nothing but promote the company. The only reference provided was a Q&A with its founder - not exactly independent coverage. No other reference was provided. Take a look at WP:INCUBATE. That might also be helpful. Frank  |  talk  18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again. As Frank has explained perfectly above, unless the deletion  proposal  was done hastily, without  sufficient reflection  by  an inexperienced |New Page Patroler (which  was not  the case here), there were in fact  several reasons why  the article did not  meet our criteria for inclusion. Thousands of new articles are posted daily, and apart from occasional ones that  might just  need a simple, quick tweak  to  make them  pass, the volunteers who  work here regularly just  don't have time to  do  background research for each one of the hundreds of corporate postings, most  of which, I  may  add, get  deleted. There is nothing  arbitrary  or personal in  the process, and at  the end  of the day, this is the rule.  Ideal of course, were if all  new users would familiarise themselves with  the rules first, unfortunately  many  of them don't,  because they  only  come here to  post  one article.You  could start developing a new article in your user user space which  every  user has for this purpose, and if you  let  us know about it, we will  keep  it  on our watchlists and look  in  from  time to  time to  see how it  is going,and offer advice on  how to  make it comply  with  our policies. However, it is important  to  bear in  mind that  references, however reliable, accurate, and verifiable they  are, do  alone not confer notability. Please remember to  follow all  the blue links in  the message on  yyourur talk  page, and he ones in  this, and Frank's message above. regards, --Kudpung (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, I will keep this in mind in future posts, I had spent time trying to read and understand the rules, but obviously misinterprited some areas. I will continue to go through what you have supplied to ensure that moving forward everyone will be happy that everything submitted is up to scratch! Cheers. Mrsox87 (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The easiest first thing to do is try to find references in external sources that demonstrate the company is notable. If you can do that, there is much that can be done to create and improve an article, and you'll find people to help. If you can't, what you'll likely find instead is frustration, because people will throw policies at it, nominate it for deletion, and generally make it seem like this is an unfriendly place. The opposite is true, but it can be masked sometimes by the fact that "regulars" around here are fairly highly committed to building a serious encyclopedia and following its policies in doing so. Frank  |  talk  12:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edward Elgar
Hello, Kudpung. I have nominated Sir E. for Featured Article, and would greatly value your contribution to its consideration. Regards! – Tim riley (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly...
Absolutely no reason to apologize, communication is never a bad thing. I wouldn't argue for either of those articles at AfD but the way it currently reads it does't take much to remove a BLPprod. If either of those articles received a traditional prod they would most likely have been deleted days ago. Take care J04n(talk page) 10:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of POINT, CABAL, etc.
Please, stop making them against Floydian and myself. It's not POINT, it's not a CABAL, it's not WABBITSEASON, it's not any of them. We have an argument for renaming that is couched in guidelines, and it is perfectly acceptable to nominate multiple articles for renaming at or around the same time, unless a move discussion for them failed recently (Floydian probably should've used, but he seems a little new to the MOVE game and he's not familiar with the templates they use). So, please, don't go accusing Floydian or me of violations of policy; ESPECIALLY if you yourself are arguing a point with very dubious footing in guidelines  Pur ple  back pack 89    17:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Shaheed Pir Chandam
Hi, me again. The above has been dead for 400 years. It happens, take care J04n(talk page) 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. I had already spent a couple of minutes starting  to clean it up, then I  couldn't  find any  sources, but  yes you  are right -  it  happens :) --Kudpung (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle question
Hi there! Thanks for responding to my question. I don't use Twinkle much, and only rarely send an article to AfD, so it's all a bit new and tentative for me. I had thought that using it for AfD would automatically place the various messages on the relevant pages (since the tool asks for details such as categories and rationale) but it didn't. I had to place those manually after the event (including the rationale on the AfD page). The only step I hestitated over when using the tool was whether to check the "wrap" box or not (I didn't) as I wasn't certain what that actually did. The Twinkle instructions seem to imply that it's all very straightforward but I wondering whether a "First time user's guide to using Twinkle" with screen shots might be useful for those using it for the first time. If that exists already and I really am being dense, please just point me in the right direction. And, yes, I think if there are add-ons which would help automate the whole process including the list notifications, please let me know.--Plad2 (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. For all deletion  methods -  WP:AfD, WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:BLPPROD, Twinkle gives you  a drop  down menu of things to  chose from, or to  enter extra info  that  may  be needed. I never use the 'wrap' box -  infact  I  don't  know what  it's for either, but  I've used Twinkle thousands of times without  a hitch. The main thing however, is to  memorise a couple of hundred of the main  acronyms we use. Twinkle   also  gives you a whole bunch  of page-top  maintenance banners too. The greatest  advantages are  that  it automatically  notifies the article creator, and saves you  from  having  to  open the edit  mode and manually  apply  the template tags to  the article. It's all  java script  dependent but  if your are running  the latest  version  of your browser, it  should all  work. I  only  use Mac, and if it  all  works on  F/Fox and Safari on  MacOS it will  work  on almost  anything. It's all  so  self-explanatory  you  don't  really  need any  instructions or screen shots. Another great  script   useful  for AfD is delsort, which also  enables semi  automatic entry  on the transcluded delsort  pages. Go  to  WP:DELSORT and read up  on  it, get  the script, and put it  on your /monobook.js or whatever Wikipedia skin you  are using. Give it all a try, test  the templates in your sandbox, and if there a re some details you  don't quite understand, don't  hesitate to  come back  here for more help :) --Kudpung (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC) PS: The main  catalogiue f templates we use for things is here: WP:TC.
 * Terrific. Thanks for the advice.  I'll give that a go when I have a moment.  I'm using latest Firefox, so that should be OK.  It may just be that I was expecting it to do more steps than it actually does.  I'll practise a bit and come back if I have any queries.--Plad2 (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)