User talk:Kudpung/Archive Sep 2010

Brontë
Hello, I was pleased to see you'd translated the French article Les Brontë, written in the spring 2009. The main idea was that each section ought to be autonomous, hence the unavoidable reiteration of the same facts. This was recently thought to be a major defect (also mentioned by an English reader: see English talk page) and, reading the article again, I found it much too complicated and written in a convoluted style. Consequently, I decided to modify it in depth and to delete all the flowery bits. This gave me the opportunity to wikify the text, particularly the notes and references (more references were added). In my opinion, the result is far more satisfying, although the article is still too long by wikipedia standards. This being said, I have no intention of getting rid of whole passages, since I want it to be a summa, presenting all the major aspects of the question, i.e. people, events, local conditions, works (including a sample of poetry for each of them), etc. If you would kindly have a look at it, I'd be most grateful. Any comments you wish to make will be much appreciated (please use my French 'page de discussion'). Best wishes, Robert Ferrieux (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Salut Robert! I  suppose doing  a translation  of the  envergure of Brontë gives one a very  close and forced examination  of the text. As you  can  see, apart from correcting  a few typos, I  didn't  interfere with  the fr.Wiki  article. However, I  have seriously  edited the En. version -  already  with  a view to  splitting  off stuff into   main articles from  much  of the heavy  detail. It  looks as if I  have preempted what  you  guys are thinking  of doing  now. The other issue is that  the en.Wiki and the fr;Wki  have very  different policies of content, layout, scope, etc. Nevertheless, congratulations to  all  concerned at  fr.Wiki  in getting  the monumental  Brontë article off the ground. I  knew nothing  about  the Brontës before I  started the traduc. Now I  feel  as if I  know everything  about  them!    --Kudpung (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, French articles do tend to be longer than the corresponding English ones (French people being so much more talkative, as everyone knows). However, the key reason behind the length of Les Brontë is that it is the only way to explain and account for the synergy between the four children (their Juvenilia being only a part of the global picture).
 * The French article has been (also) heavily criticized for its sheer length. Ideally, it would probably be better — or at least more in keeping with WP requirements — to split it up and tranfer information to the individual articles. Problem is, we believe that a lot of understanding of how these children came to be what they were would probably be lost in the process. So I expect we will more or less stick to the present format, even though we admit it is a bit "unwieldy". --Azurfrog (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The French article certainly told me more than  I  needed to  know about  the Brontës and I  did find it  very  interesting  to  do  the traduc.  However, our guidelines at  en.Wiki tend more towards brevity  and fact  reporting than trying to  explain  things. There is no  doubt  that  there existed an extraordinary  symbiosis among  the children, but  I  have interpreted that  it  is more our task  at  en.Wiki  to  provide referenced sources which  the reader can turn to  if he/she needs a more in  depth  treatment or professional opinions. I  felt  that  the French  article went  into more detail than necessary for an English encyclopedia and I  once mentioned  somewhere that  it  looked more worthy as a master degree thesis! --Kudpung (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Your are absolutely right: an article of this length and built in this way needs a lot of paring and reshuffling for an English encyclopaedia. Here in France, we must assume that most people have never heard of the Brontës and if they have, they knwow pretty much next to nothing about them. Hence the idea that a main article on the subject must cover it in its globality, since readers will never bother to open subsidiary articles and then go back to the central source. After the serious trimming I have subjected the article to, we'll let it compete for a gold star, probably as from the beginning of October when my comrade Azurfrog is back from his holidays, with the advantage of being already aware of the objections which are bound to be raised, mainly about its length and the presence in the course of the development of various poems or lengthy quotations. Have you had a look at our Robert/Elizabeth Browning (and co.). Let's keep in touch. All the best, Robert Ferrieux (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

in talk page header
Hi.

I hope you don't find my pointing this out presumptious, and apologies if you already know, but the header on this talkpage uses the Magic Word. This displays the name of the last user to edit the page. Whilst this works fine in an editnotice (such as yours, which I'm reading while typing this message) - when used on the talk page itself it doesn't really have the presumably desired effect - for instance, before I began composing this message, your page said to me: Hi, Robert Ferrieux., since that was the last person to revise it before I wandered past. There's a short discussion about this at: User_talk:ChaosMaster16/Archive102 where we encountered the situation with another user. Again, sorry if you already knew this. Begoon &#149;talk 07:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you  also  checked my  user page for any  errors too ;)   --Kudpung (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * lol - no, I wasn't checking for anything, I came here to read a message that was referenced from one of the pages on my watchlist, and just happened to notice it. I thought I'd mention it in passing because it's not the kind of thing you're likely to notice yourself. Begoon &#149;talk  07:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No problems! I've known about  it  almost  since I  did it  over a year  ago. Been too  busy  providing  content  and other productive stuff to  worry  too  much  about  it. Thanks for reminding  me though ;) --Kudpung (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Obviously it's utterly unimportant in the great scheme of things, but as a designer/coder in RL I find it quite difficult not to comment on little niggly things like that, once noticed. Habit, certainly, and character flaw, quite possibly. Begoon &#149;talk  08:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Four glasses puzzle
Sarek of Vulcan fixed the Afd for me, so you should now be able to add your comments. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School
Hi. I hope you don't mind but I reverted a few of your changes.

Firstly, regards the logo/crest; it was decided in a previous discussion (which I'll try and find) that it did not meet the fair use criteria, plus it looks bad, don't you think?

Secondly, regards the infobox, I just thought it looked worse. Also, the chair of the governors was unreferenced. Is there any policy that states we should use the UK schools box over just the general schools one?

Thanks for helping out, and for the suggestion regards the alumni list. I'll have a dig but I doubt there are enough to create such an impressive list. Tom (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. The logo does meet the fair use criteria. I was collating the relevant material as you posted. The same FUR and 'logo' © is in use on hundreds of UK  school articles. You are of course free to use any  infobox you like, but as there was one made specifically for UK schools,  it's usual to use it. Generally if we find the wrong box being used  we replace it with the correct one and populate any  missing  slots. BTW, someone has been adding  unreferenced alumni - I didn't delete it although perhaps I  should, but I did leave a warning  on the IP's tp. Please be assured that  I  am not looking to interfere with your school's FA, but  for obbvious reasons I do have all UK school articles on my watchlist. The last thing we want  is for a non school article expert to drive by and demote the FA. You can be fairly sure that  nobody from the WP:SCHOOLS is going to vandalise it ;) Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh right ok, in that case apologies. Even so, though, don't you think the logo looks terrible? I mean, does it actually add anything to the article? If it has to go in, could it go elsewhere rather than in the infobox?


 * I did notice the added alumni, and I've now removed it, thanks. I didn't for a moment think you were interfering, and of course it is no more my article than it is anyone else's. On a completely unrelated note, I'm planning on holidaying in Thailand this Christmas, any recommendations? Tom (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the logo looks terrible, but it was the best I  could find - it  really  needs one with  a slightly  higher res and at  about  150 x 150 px. If  you  think the  infobox looks better without  it, leave it  off, it's not mandatory - as I  said before, you've already  got  your FA and I've updated the WP:SCHOOLS FA list. However, if you or someone connected with the school can get  a clean scan of it from some genuine school stationery or a brochure or prospectus, it  would be great.  It's the  first  UK school FA.  On Thailand, don't hesitate to email me, Depending on  what kind of holiday you want, I can certainly  come up with  some suggestions. BTW, now that  you've been through the mill of getting a school article up to FA, would you or anyone on your team like to do a UK school GA review? GA is nowhere near as demanding as an FA.--Kudpung (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This: File:J-Sch-crest.svg might be better. Traced from a higher res jpg on the website and recoloured according to the low res version. Begoon &#149;talk  04:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That is excellent. Did you  do it  yourself? Congrats if you  did. I  have requested deletion  of my  original  .jpg  file. Would you  have  time to  do  a GA review of Malvern College for us? I  can't  do  it myself  because I  have contributed too  much  to  it already.  It's already listed on  the GAC proposal  page. If  you  are too busy right  now  in  RL, never mind..Kudpung (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes - graphics is what I do. I've converted hundreds of poor bitmaps like that here and at Commons - that's my main content contribution, although I do monitor a pretty big watchlist, and there are a few articles I edit. Doing a GA review is not something I've ever done - but I'm very strong on spelling, grammar, style and readability, so I might have a go. I've looked at the guidelines before, so it wouldn't be completely alien to me. Begoon &#149;talk  05:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok - had a go at the GA review - hope I did it right, since it's my first. Begoon &#149;talk  06:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't  be telling  me about  your expertise in  graphics,  I  could come up  with  a 1,000 things for you  to  do for us! Are you  going  to  place your crest  on  the Judd page, or do  you  want  me to  do  it  for you? Thanks for taking  n  the GA review. It  should be pretty  clean already  because I  set  high  standards for  myself and others, but I'm  not  looking for any  favours,  so  be critical - you  are sure to  find things that  we have missed; there always are.--Kudpung (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add the image to Judd. There wasn't much at all in the review, it's very well written; most of what I did comment on were suggestions only. Begoon &#149;talk  07:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The logo is fantastic, good job. Well done on getting Malvern to GA status, sorry I couldn't review myself. Tom (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
See also following section on Talkback. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC) .

Liturgy (ancient Greece)
Hi, would you be good enough to check the translation of Liturgy (ancient Greece) against Liturgie (Grèce antique). My French is fairly basic, and I'm sure I've mangled it horribly. TIA. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 10:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had a brief first look at it; it's very long, but most French articles are. I'll check it out against the French when I have time, but I do recommend heavily editing the article and/or splitting some sections off into 'main articles'. If you did the trnslation, don't worry about having to cut stuff out again - the mammoth Brontë article, for example, which I translated this year, is now only about 75% of what I originally translated after we had all had a go at whittling it down. One of the problems (for us) of French article style, is the wide use of tags for putting additional details in the Notes section.--Kudpung (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate you taking the time when you can. You may be right about having to trim it down, but it's clearly well researched and it would be a shame to lose that information. By the way, is there a policy on translating direct quotes from the French secondary sources? Doesn't seem right to do so, somehow. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 11:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On translating  policy, it's porbably  best  if you  read all  about  it first  hand at  translation. --Kudpung (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Schroeder Romero & Shredder
Hello, you placed a notability tag on Shroeder Romero & Shredder. If we are to be strict about the notability guidelines in terms of requiring significant coverage then few manhattan galleries would pass. Just look at the wiki. most of these pages are very bad. This may have to do with the nature of a gallery. Galleries hold exhibitions and it is the exhibitions that are talked about, not the galleries. Nonetheless, galleries are large part of manhattan culture and it should be addressed. I realize I'm digressing a bit but I'd like to hear your thoughts.Warrenking (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems much of what I'm pointing out about the other galleries is covered in Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Warrenking (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, you've really answered your own questions. But let's not put the cart before the horse. We have a lot more hoops to jump through before an article gets accepted. Notability is a criterion of inclusion. Unless they are of the fame and envergure of the Tate in London, there is hardly a gallery in Manhatten or anywhere else in the world  that  will meet our criteria for inclusion. If they've slipped through the net  it's due to the inexperienced and possibly less mature WP:New page patrolers letting them through. It's not an argument to say: "Well look at all the others that  have been allowed." And by the way, it appears that  I am not the only editor to have immediately raised a doubt as the the notability of your gallery. I don't want to bore you with a string of links to all our policy pages, as I'm sure you are familiar with them already. They are however sometimes confusing, so please do not hesitate to ask me to explain any of them that might seem ambiguous or unclear. You could then even help us to reduce the huge backlog of all those articles that  need improving or deleting. Do note that  I haven't proposed your article for immediate deletion, I've only tagged it as requiring attention, as I wanted to give you the opportunity to follow this rule: WP:BURDEN first.--Kudpung (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC) BTW, WP:ININ is an essay, it's not policy.

Speedy deletion declined: Roger Ferriter
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Roger Ferriter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

2009 Trophée des Alpilles – Singles
Holy God... This is the singles draw with results only. See main article: 2009 Trophée des Alpilles. PL Alvarez (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong talk  page, God is at Talk:God, talk  to  him  there ;) So  I  can  categorise your article as golf, yes? or was it  badminton? Doubly funny  because I  have a home just  a few kilometres from  Les Alpilles and I've never heard of it.--Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Malven College GA & userpage
Hi Kudpung. Thanks for the GA badge on my user pagical as a rulee. I'm glad it came together so readily. I had rather hoped so, as I got to a point in my time management where I simply couldn't justify too much time in Wikipedia (I lose time in other areas, but I'm taming those too), hence my burst at citation formatting, then absence. I felt a bit guilty that I wouldn't be able to do much more, but I figured the article wouldn't need much more work, and I'm glad to see it came together. Regards Wotnow (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * After our combined efforts on other GAs, I think anything  we propose in future will leave little for the reviewers to point out - although  they  will  always find something. The next  one on  the list  will be Hanley Castle High School, perhaps you'd like to check it  over. Malleus has already  had one look at  it  a while ago for me and he's extremely  critical as a rule. Once again, thanks for all your help. --Kudpung (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:List of libraries in Thailand
- F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 06:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Justus Scheibert
Sorry on that part...At first look the article had a scent of vandalism, but when I searched google on the same subject, I found the article to be fair. I also welcomed the user on behalf of Wikipedia. The over tagging was an act of defence from my side...excuse me for that... :) arun  talk  15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Death anomalies
Hi Kudpung, I've submitted a signpost article at Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-13/Sister projects about the death anomalies project. As you've done a lot of the work there I wonder if you'd be willing to run an eye over it, and maybe add a quote from your good self?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a peek :) --Kudpung (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you've covered it adequately and eloquently. There's not much I could add really. If you like, you could mention that it might be an interesting challenge for the language experts from the translation project, in a similar way to how you solicited my help. I've corrected just one tiny typo. --Kudpung (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudpung, much appreciated.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

78.146.165.175 (talk)

moved from top
Hello Kudpung, Could you please let us know how we can talk to you privately about a comment you have just recently made about an article which we uploaded. Just because you are a volunteer, does not give you the right to speak to people with contempt. We would love to have a discussion with you regarding your comments. Look forward to hearing from you. If you leave information for us on your page we would be most grateful. thegreenthing78.146.165.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Hi, I have replied on your talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi I have replied on your talk page. Thanks81.159.130.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
 * A further and final comment has been posted on your talk page at talk page. if you can, please avoid posting  from  a different  IP  address each time  - it's something  else that is also against  Wikipedia policy, unfortunately. --Kudpung (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré
Rather a long way from Malvern, and not, I know, your speciality, but if, perchance you were minded to say anything at the current peer review it would be esteemed a favour. (I should, by the way, have said before that I am at your service to reciprocate at any time on any article you have an interest in.) – Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim. Ah, Fauré! A much  ignored composer -  excellent  piano  stuff. Yes, a long  way  from  Malvern, but  oddly  enough, not  far at  all  from  my  home in France! As with  Elgar, I'm not  really  a sufficiently  competent  authority  on  classical  composers to  know what  to  look  out  for on  the content  level. I  will  look  the article over for possible formatting errors, structure, and reliability  of sources though. --Kudpung (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That will do nicely: thank you very much! – Tim riley (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim. The lead and the first para of section music contains the same statement: The composer Aaron Copland wrote of them, "The themes, harmonies, form, have remained essentially the same, but with each new work they have all become more fresh, more personal, more profound. I would suggest that you could remove the one from the lead without having a negative effect on the article as a whole. I have made a couple of very minor tweaks. The article is quite long, and broad in its scope, is well well sourced, especially from paid-for sources to which I assume you or the co-editors have subsrcibed.
 * I would also suggest slightly rearraging the Biography section. I would rename the section Personal life, and split sub-sections such as First musical appointments and any others to do wit his professional musical development into a main section Career. Otherwise, stuff such as Marriage looks a bit odd in amongst everything else. Unless I have missed anything very important, IMO the article is certainly a GAC, and once promoted, could rapidly become a FA.
 * I hope this helps. --Kudpung (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. Thank you so much! - Tim riley (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwix
Hello, we're still needing your help over here. JackPotte (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. OK, I've offered a couple of tips there about what  you  can  do  to  take it  further, and how I  might   be able to help you  gain impetus for your proposal. Do  keep  me updated becausd I'm  very interested in  you  basic  suggestion.--Kudpung (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated the paragraph, if accepted we would just need for a sysop to add the archive hyperlinks automatic generations in Mediawiki:Common.js. JackPotte (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack. I really do not understand what you mean here. Please explain fully what you have done because your suggestion was a very good one and I am interested in seeing it get adopted.--Kudpung (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam


Hello Kudpung, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"OZ" and "Ongameport"
Hi Kudpung,

"I called it as I saw it", and the rest of the usual stuff people say when they don't want to admit they are wrong. The short answer to your question is: what's a game port?

The long answer: the editor that added the info had just added a page Ongameport, and it's only content was this oz.ongameport.com. Either I A3'd and it was deleted by NawlinWiki, or NW deleted A3'd it even before my CSD tag was applied; whatever actually happened isn't important. What happened next was that I undid the editor's next addition, reasoning that if the article was speedy-able, then it quacked like advertising, and most probably it had no place in an embedded list. Actually it was in a table. And WP:SALAT doesn't apply to tables. Or, it might apply. And what exactly is a game port? Now I'm completely confused. Why can't you just ask me nice, simple questions about [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Shirt58&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects&getall=1 Constitutional Law, or Japanese botanists, or pretty ladybugs... ]?

Thanks for this message instead of simply just undoing the edit. Please get back to me once it's sorted out - looks like I have an apology to make to a new editor. --Shirt58 (talk) 9:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Shirt, thanks for you rapid reply. Actually, I don't think this WP:EAR request came from the author of th deleted page. User:Crass33 only made 2 edits, one to the table and one to EAR. FWIW, the edit to the table seemed pretty innocuous and the game does exist. I'll admit though that on first  sight, the game port website front  page is so badly  designed it looks like an online store for something. I too would probably have "called it as I saw it". Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Werner Freiherr von Beschwitz
Hi Kudpung,

All of the articles that I found on living Knight's Cross recipients use the past tense of "was" when describing the rank and the the decoration. DocYako (talk) 4:09 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Doc, you may well  be right. However, as the Wkipedia is an encyclopedia, we are 'under orders' to  be extremely  factual about  whether people are alive or not, and to  avoid any  misunderstanding. See Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis. Your contribs, especially  about  notable Germans are very  valuable to  the  encyclopedia, so  I've done a couple of minor clean ups. You  might  like to  check  out these pages: WP:CITE and WP:MOS for more information  on  formatting  references and notes. If  you  are working  on, or preparing  articles on  German related subjects, please do  not hesitate to ask  me for help. regards, --Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tb
TB.  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  10:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
Alright! All ship-shape with the stub icons! I hope this will impress wikipedians now. If there is anything else you can advise me to do, leave a comment on my talk.

User:Bakeysaur99

Lycee
Hi, Kudpung!

I am aware that the lycee is the equivalent of a U.S. high school, a Canadian "secondary school," or a British "sixth form college". A secondary school (the general word "secondary school") would be a high school, a lycee, etc. A tertiary educational institution would be a college/university.

The reason why I had the naked text "Situé en plein coeur de Metz, capitale de la Lorraine, le lycée Fabert fut le premier lycée de la ville" in there was so the original French text that was used to support the citation would be visible so readers know what text supports the content.

The naked link was a mistake, so thank you for fixing it! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I taught for 12 years in the French school system in mainland France. (BTW: Engl. 6th form college is 6th form only - 12th grade, or 13th grade in some countries), Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see! The City of Paris translates "Lycee" as "6th form college" on its English pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they're wrong (Webmasters are notorious for getting content things wrong!). Lower secondary  is college, roughly  grades 7,8, 9 and Lycée is 10, 11, 12. The  French  school  class notqtion  goes backwards, so  they  say Premier for Grade 12,  seconde for Grade 11, etc. College and Lycée are generally  separate schools on  separate campusses. Only  private schools might  go through  all  years, and they  might  even include primary  and pre-school.  BTW, I'm also a published  French-English  lexicographer amongst  other things!--Kudpung (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright... I'll search the Paris website and see if there are any other documents that translate what a "lycee" is. The City of Paris posts content in primarily English, Spanish, and French.
 * The City of Paris translates "Collège" as "high school"
 * If these translations are a mistake, I would imagine the city would fix them if I sent an e-mail to them. I sent an e-mail to the webmaster, asking if the "sixth form college" translation was intentional. I'll see what happens.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt whether you'll have much success. I  tried the same thing  for years, and it  fell on  deaf ears! In  the UK (if there is to  be any  distinction, and in  modern-day  state comprehensive schools there generally isn't), college woud translate directly  as Junior High School. I'm  not  sure what  it  is in  the USA  or Canada, I  never worked there. What is confusing  is that  in Englqnd, some LEA's still  prqctice a three tier school  system, so  you  get  a Middle School  as well, from  which  kids start  secondary, or High School  at  age 13 instead of 11. Kudpung (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the USA a "college" is a tertiary institution like a university. Often colleges offer less subjects than universities do. A community college in the USA is a two year program that offers classes to a certain district or municipality. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And in the UK, with the exception of the great unis of Oxbridge, the word college usualy referes to college of further education - kinda where you can learn to be a plumber, a motor mechanic, or a hairdresser, although some do offer tertialy degrees on behalf of nearby unis.Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2010 (UT
 * Apologies, I should have added that in a French lycée there is the class Terminale (final) which  of course is the class where they  do  their Baccalauréat - it's vague, could equate to  an English  6th form, or what  is still  sometimes referred to  as the Upper 6th, aclass where UK kids do  their A and S level  GCEs. In  any  ase, it's the final  graduation  class that  reults in  entry  level  for university.--Kudpung (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem!
Cheers -- Tom my! 16:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Stewart MacFarlane
Hi, this is Giotette. Thanks for your help with the Stewart MacFarlane (artist) article. I don't know how to make the footnotes more authoritative. I don't know how to make the whole article Wiki-approved. I hate all those warnings at the top. Please advise! Giotette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giotette (talk • contribs) 05:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC) :


 * Hi Giotette! It  all  quite easy  really,  but  you  will  need to  follow the links and read up  on  the well  documented instructions that  we have here. I  suggest  you  start  here (click  this link): Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia, and take your time. Follow links to  the other pages for more detailed instructions, and pay  particular attention to the pages that  describe what  kind of references are needed, how to  present  them  on  a page; how to  use talk  pages and format  and sign  your messages, and how to  make correct  edit  summaries. If you  get  lost, no  worries, come back  here and I'll  give you  direct  links to  the pages you  need to  read,  and I'll  try  to explain  anything  you  still don't  fully  understand. Happy  editing! --Kudpung (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Cohen and Jamie Mitchell (aka Jamie Mitchell Bertman)
Hi Kudpung_ I thank you for your patience with me as I am obviously not doing this very well. My question is simply, what am I not corroborating with my links about bands that I have performed in? I assume the imdb links are sufficient for my film career. I am about to get into my work as a human trafficking filmaker with Aaron Cohen, whose wiki page I just started, so I want to get things right and accommodate your guidelines. There will not be a lot of info on these shoots because they are undercover etc. In good faith I can provide links to CNN, Larry King video footage. Will that suffice? Thank you for reading. Jamie Mitchell (aka Jamie Mitchell Bertman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transultra (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jamie, The threshold for inclusion  in  an  encyclopedia is the  concept  of notability. New articles arrive here at  the rate of up  to  500 per hour and we naturally  have to  draw the line somewhere. Your first  question will  be 'What  about  so-and-so? They've got  an  article!' Very  possible, but  there is only  a handful  of people who  are checking  all  the new arrivals, and some do  of course slip  trough  the net -  until  a more experienced Wikipedian picks  up  on  it later, or is doing  a stint  on  what  we call  New Page Patrol.  I  think  one  way  to  explain  this is to understand that even  the best  referenced sources don't  make notability - all they  do  is confirm it if the subject  is already  notable. So  what  makes something  notable enough? Well,  we do  have a very strict  policy on  this with  regard to  living  people (our strictest  policy), they  must  have done something  exceptional for the media to  have picked up  on  it  and written  a book  about  them,  or several editorial  pieces in  important  quality  national or international newspapers or magazines, or made a TV documentary  about  them, such as  having won   gold discs for their music  or been inducted into  an official  Hall of Fame, etc., or won a  Nobel  Prize for something, or having  developed a piece of software or a website that  has truly  revolutionised the way  we live or work, or top members of a very  royal  family,  so  we have no  problems for example, with  Steve Wozniak, Henry Windsor, Precilla White, Harry  Webb,  or Joseph Alois Ratzinger -  those are the qualities that  make encyclopedic material. And when we've got  that, then we need to prove those features with  what  we call reliable, verifiable sources.  So what - is your next  question - are acceptable reliable sources?  Well,  they  are not  websites or newspaper stories that  only  briefly mention  the subject's name in  an article about  something  else. They  must  be specifically  about  the subject, and have been written  because an uninvolved,  respected author thinks the subject  is important  enough, or has done something  extraordinary  enough to  write about  him  or her. All websites, except  those of governments and really  important news and TV sources are suspect. Nowadays anyone can make a website for himself and get  it hosted for a couple of pounds a month, and there are no  controls over what  they  want  to  say  about  themselves. This also  immediately disallows the use of all  social  networking  sites Twitteries, Yourfaces, MyTube, etc, that  anyone can contribute to, and surprisingly, even the International  Movie Data Base (IMDB), which is not, on its own, sufficient  proof of anything.
 * Finally, one very strict  rule here is that  you  cannot  write an article about  yourself, or even about  someone you  know well or whom  you  work  with. Articles like that  are Conflict  of Interest, and are usually  mercilessly  deleted on  sight. The bottom  line is, that  if you  would like to  be part of this encyclopedia building  community, there are a lot (possibly  even too many) of rules that  have to  be learned, and some quick, clickable  links to  some of the most  important  of these are:  WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:BAND, WP:ARTIST, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE. Wiki  is also  not  a list  of everything  or all  bands, or all  journalists, that  exist (WP:WWIN). If  the subjects you  want  to  write about  can jump  through  all  these hoops, the next  thing  you need to  know is how to  present  the article, what  must  go  into  it, and what  must  be left  out. One of the best  ways to  do  that  is to  take a look  at  the good articles about people,  use a similar format,  use an infobox, include the categories to  make it  searchable, and prepare the article offline on  your computer or online in  your Wikipedia private space that  you  have here just  for that  purpose, and then submit it  to  the publicly  viewable page if and when it is ready. You  can  always ask me or another  an editor here to  check  it  out  for you  before you  do  that. Best  regards, Kudpung (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tasha Ekard
I would like your advice on whether to nominate the above page under CSD A7 or BLP prod. --ZhongHan (Email) 06:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do a WP:BEFORE and if all you get is blogs, Twitter and such stuff slap a  A7 on it. It's actaully quite rare to find a clear cut case for BLPPROD because all they  have to do is stick a crap ref such as YouTube or Face book or just any external link anywhere on the page and then you can't use the BLPPROD - we're probably going to rethink the BLPPROD again soon now that it's been up and running for 6 months, Good luck. --Kudpung (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --ZhongHan (Email) 09:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Worcester
Thanks for the note, I have rushed off and copy-edited a little. However I am more concerned with the 2001 census, we should be addressing this site-wide. Can you advise the nature of the move? Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 04:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Hi Rich. Yes, I've just left  a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire. If  you  run  the checklinks tool  you should get  a list  of all  that  link  to  it.  Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks it was your note there that alerted me. Rich Farmbrough, 05:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Hi. I'm not sure exactly what happened. I had run the checklink tool on Evesham because I'm thinking of putting it up for GA. The result  I  got  was that the page on the Worcs County Council site we use for the demographics had moved., and it provided a list of WP:WORCS pages using the link. Howeveer, manually checking the link goes to the ONS page for Evesham here, so it's  maybe a tool error. I don't  mow how these tools work - it's not  my  area of specialization. --Kudpung (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Worcester article uses both: whub and ONS. Only whub seems to have moved. I would always prefer ONS because if they move they are going to be systematic, and we have a site wide template for them, which means one edit fixes everything. I'll leave a note on the project page to that effect. Rich Farmbrough, 06:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks Rich. I didn't know about thst tpl. --Kudpung (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now fixed all the other deadlinks on the Worcester page.--Kudpung (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Owain Owain
Thank you for putting a conflict of interest warning on that article about Owain Owain. I had an exchange with Llywelyn2000 on the Welsh Wikipedia last night, in which he said that he bought the copyright in Owain's book not to make money, but with the intention of releasing it for free on the web, though it seems that he has not yet done so. I think this still confirms a close connection with the subject, even though probably not a financial one. Just to also let you know, he has a section of his personal discussion page on the Welsh Wikipedia called "Robin Llwyd ab Owain", mostly in English, where he also admits to having known Owain Owain's son for many years, on whom he has also written an article here. Do you want to check it out and decide whether a conflict of interest warning would be appropriate on that article too? Thanks. Llais Sais (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Llais for the heads up. As long as Llewelyn fully understands our policy on  WP:COI, which  he probably  does now that  you  have spoken  to  him, and keeps his editing  perfectly  neutral that  in  no  way  could be construed as a plug for his book and web site or for Llewellyn's son, I  don't  think  there would really be much  to  be gained by  tagging  all  his articles. let's keep  the articles on  our watchlists and check in  from  time to  time that  everything  is neutral, notable, and correctly  sourced. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, as I wasn't sure. By the way, I didn't say this Robin Llwyd ab Owain was his own son, but the son of Owain Owain - i.e. he claims to have known both father and son. Also please be careful about spelling, as forms starting "Llew-" are considered to be anglicisms, that might annoy him. Llais Sais (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can't guarantee that  last  bit -  I  speak  12 languages but  I'm  afraid Welsh  isn't  one of them ;) --Kudpung (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Alphonse Giroux
I removed the BLPPROD you placed on Alphonse Giroux as an article on someone who died in 1848 clearly does qualify as a BLP. Click23 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A rare slip of a mouse, thanks for catching  it. I am  aware of the policy - I  helped make it :) --Kudpung (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gürsel
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gürsel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not redirect to a different or incorrect namespace. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's supposed to be a dab page. The creator made two of them - this was the other one. There was no nerer CSD criteria - or do duplicate dab pages have to go through AfD? Thanks for any advice.--Kudpung (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is the other one? It can be made to redirect to Gürsel. Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks as if it's gone already - someone probably deleted the other one, and this one now needs to be turned into a proper dab page. No big issue, I've been cleqring the huge NPP backlog from 31 August for several hours.--Kudpung (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Article: Davis & Shirtliff Group
I understand that you highlighted an article about the Davis & Shirtliff Group for speedy deletion for infringement of A7 "No Indication of Importance" and for "unambiguous advertising". Having re-read my article I can see how some of the content which is aimed at highlighting Davis & Shirtliff's activities may appear to suggest that I am advertising the services of Davis & Shirtliff. In light of this I have re-drafted the article and hope to have achieved objectivity. However, I do refute your suggestion that the Davis & Shirtliff Group are not important or notable as they are the largest, oldest and most well established provider of water and solar equipment in in Kenya and, as a result, are a household name. Furthermore, Davis & Shirtliff provide a high level of expertise in the water sector within East Africa. Something which is recognised and made use of by a number of non-governmental organisations working to provide potable water to underprivileged members of society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeVaulkhard (talk • contribs) 16:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have replied in depth on  your talk  page. --Kudpung (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Afd
I watch all AfDs I'm involved in. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)