User talk:Kudpung/Archive Oct 2019

TY
Thank you Kudpung, I really appreciate you staying on top of the whole issue and keeping me posted on what was happening. A couple months ago a did remove an ENORMOUS amount from my watchlist so I wouldn't be pulled back into ... not sure what to call it ... but I suspect you know what I mean. TY again. — Ched (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel . I have over 33,000 pages on my watchlist. Fortunately it only displays about 250 entries every 24 hours so it's quick enough to scan through. No way of pruning it now unless I delete the whole thing and start over. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

reviewing a wiki page
Sawaddeeka Khun Kudpung. I'd like to ask for your kind help, if you have time and if you're interested in it, for reviewing a wiki page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jennis_Oprasert Although it's not yet a month that I've submitted the draft for reviewing, recently Jennis has just won the Rising Star Award at Busan International Film Festival, so I thought it'd be great if her wiki page becomes live in case some international audience might would like to look her up. I'm not very familiar for wikipedia, so I stand ready to take your kind advise and I'm sorry in advance if I have done something inappropriate. Thank you very much na ka. Best, J Toppo (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC) J Toppo
 * ✅. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much na ka Khun Kudpung for your kind help. It is much appreciated.J Toppo 16:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

NPP
Hi there. Thanks for the message, could you tell me where I did something wrong that prompted you to write the message on my talk page? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:NPP again as recommended, you will notice, and it will be a good opportunity to check out the instructions once more. Reviewing new pages is a complex process with a steep learning curve for relatively new users to our Wikipedia back offices. It needs a near-admin level of knowledge of policies, guidelines, and exceptions and alternatives to deletion. Otherwise, keep up the good work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI
You forgot to sign your RFA comment. I agree very much with what you said.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you enormously for the heads up, . It's a mistake I rarely make. I spent around 3 hours researching and preparing that vote off-Wiki and simply forgot to add the 4 tildes. Have you voted yet? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm still thinking about it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposals regarding AfC & NPP
You are invited to comment at discussion currently taking place at Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer for pre-opinion on the combined functions of Articles for Creation (AfC) and New Page Review (NPR). This mass message invitation is being sent to subscribed members of the work group at the project The future of NPP and AfC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this time our views are essentially the same. As you said, we need to remember we've come a long way in this in the last few years. I am beginning to think we have new articles under reasonable control, and I am planning to partially re-focus on revisiting the older promotional  ones.     DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think we do, . But it's been a long slow haul to get the progress - 5.5 years to be exact - much of which was unfortunately met with resistance from the WMF.  There are just a few more smaller changes to be made, but IMO they are achievable, and then I too will want to go back to doing more forensics sniffing out socks and sneaky advertising, and perhaps spending more time on what goes on at Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

WP:DRAFTIFY
Hi there. I remember seeing you on more than one occasion saying that moving to draft is policy. At the time you even linked to where it was so. Stupidly, I didn't make a note of it. Could you, if it doesn't take you too much time, point me to it again. Promise I'll make a note of it this time.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have never said that moving to draft is policy, because it isn't. You must be confusing it with something else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies then...  Onel 5969  TT me 13:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ,You may have been thinking of "redirect', which is something I often try to get across to lazy patrollers. Unless an article is toxic, e.g. spam, attack, copyvio, etc., or simply totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia, leaning towards inclusionism (which Wikipedia does, if only to bloat the number of articles) a redirect may be a search term that people might legitimately use. Unless the wording has surreptitiously been changed (which often happens), the policy is quite clear. See for example template:R from school and the wording it generates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew about the redirect policy, possibly I conflated the two. I just have a difficult time with wholly unreferenced articles remaining in mainspace. Thanks for you response above. Onel 5969  TT me 15:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * wholly unreferenced articles are not a problem. Do a quick 'BEFORE' then PROD if not notable or draftify if there is potential. Take care though, to be aware of articles that are exempt from referencing (see this). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Help with transfer German Wiki - English Wiki
Hi, After reading your impressive background I decided to ask you for help to post the page in the german wikipedia as well in the english wikipedia.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_TV_Award

Should I first make a draft? Thank you very much for your guidance. Best, Matthiasvon Matthiasvon (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * it looks as if you have already created the draft, at least in  your user space, so I  have done some work on it  for you. The names of the jurors are best  left  out because they  are probably  not  individually  notable. The references need to be correctly  formatted. The winners would be best  presented in  table form because this section will grow each  year. Let  me know when it  is ready  and I'll check it over again and move it  to  mainspace for you  and add the attribution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you very very much. I went over it follwing your advices. I am sorry, I still struggle to correctly format the links, could you give me advice in this? Great to have you on my side. MatthiasvonMatthiasvon (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , formatting the links is not really difficult but you need to read up on it first. See WP:CITE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung, I did my best. I really would need your help for the finishing touches, hope you can help me. I really appreciate it. I am ad the end of my possiblities. And if it works now, could you as well link it on the left side to the german page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_TV_Award
 * I don't know how to thank you. Best, Matthiasvon Matthiasvon (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I never understood why our help pages have to be so many and so complex, but you may find this page more helpful: WP:REFB. Probieren geht über Studieren! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, danke für den neuen Link. unfortunately I even don't find my text anymore, could you send me the link again. At my last look, in the preview it looked good, for me, after my 10th edit :) Can you help me? MatthiasvonMatthiasvon (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Your draft is at User:Matthiasvon/sandbox/Venice TV Award, it hasn't gone anywhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Yes Thank you. Found it and edited it. Could you please take a look. MatthiasvonMatthiasvon (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , please remove the COPYVIO that I took out and you put back in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I see it is already online, but a lot of content missing from the sandbox could you upload it, or should I edit the already online version. And I am sorry, I don#t know what you mean with COPYVIO. I am sorry, that I need so much help. Thank you. Best, Matthias Matthiasvon (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I edited now the changes for the online version. Hope this works. Could you talk a look and hopefully everything is finished soon.
 * Thank you again very much for your patience and support.
 * Best, MatthiasvonMatthiasvon (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , it looks as if beat us to it by just over an hour. An extremely rare situation, but I have to WP:AGF and assume it was a coincidence. Anyway, there is nothing to stop you putting our changes into it if it improves the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again, I am happy, that I made the right choice to contact you. Best, Matthiasvon Matthiasvon (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for advice

 * I wanna extend my gratitude for your adviceSHISHIR DUA (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

AN board
I just wonder if there is any way to reconsidering enacting a block on the ground of the topic ban violation.

In the thread, I wasn’t trying to start a general discussion on the draftspace usage and policies; but I was trying to respond to the concern raised on my draftspace usage. I didn’t think that was prohibited from the topic ban. (I didn’t discuss any policies like G13.) I admit I might have been baited by walking on the edges; that was my mistake. I also assumed to the ANI thread the topic ban applies loosely; the topic ban was after all the results of the disputes over MfDs or in other project pages. I was wrong to assume that in hindsight. I strongly believe a block is too strong measure. I am scared and I will stop editing the thread; so there will be no topic ban issue, potentially or actually, from now on. Regards, -— Taku (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you have any comments to make, please make them in the official venue. That said, as far as I can see/remember, the Tban was 'broadly construed' which is the exact opposite of 'loosely'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (I understand. But please note I have also responded to you at the thread in question. —- Taku (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC))

Wikimania
Hi Chris! There's not much from Google about Bangkok 2020. Is there any schedule yet, particularly for submissions of talks, and for scholarship applications? Don't want to miss that this time. Thanks a lot---Peter Pgallert (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . There's just not much about Bangkok 2020. It was my idea 2 years ago in long off-Wiki discussions with Ellie Young to hold it here but the WMF organisation committee doesn't appear anxious for my participation. Anyway, it's early days yet. Take care my friend. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

RE: ACCEPTED
Oh, great! Thanks. Tajotep (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello thank you for reviewing and accepting my article I will now further improve it. Can you please alter the title to just "Dorae" instead of "Dorae,Inc." please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorae,_Inc
 * ✅,, the article will now go through the next stage of reviewing at NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I think I addressed the issues in the article is it possible to remove the maintenance template? Thank you! Bruno Sequito (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , not until it has passed review at NPR. Please be aware that there is a backlog here of several weeks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for your patience. Bruno Sequito (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Impersonated thread closure?
Please have a look at an archived discussion from AN/I, closed under your signature last week. Unless there’s been a weird database glitch (or I’m losing my mind—always possible—salmonids accepted at the delivery entrance) the was made by an anon at 19:03 on the 18th, despite the 21:47 timestamp. The identical closure by you (of “Uncivil user” a few sections up) at 21:47 the previous day suggests a copy-paste. I happened across this on Special:Contributions/208.185.237.210. It’s been CU-blocked by, so I guess there’s no more to be done in the way of prophylaxis ATM, but I thought you might want at least to remove your name, and perhaps even to restore the section to the noticeboard page. Some of the parties looked ready to close, but the last posting by expressed some dissatisfaction (albeit with willingness to let it drop). The IP, which locates to either New York or DC (depending on which link under the contribs you click—a long way from SE Asia regardless) made some pretty sound observations there IMO, but of course that doesn’t excuse whatever socking & impersonation shenanigans it’s been used for.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  03:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, . It's quite obviously a very puerile attempt at impersonation but there's nothing worth doing about it now. has CU blocked the IP without comment which means he probably knows who the user is who is editing without logging in or who is blocked and/or banned. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the ping, I appreciate it! ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)