User talk:Kudpung/Archive Sep 2011

I'm new to this, can you help please?
Hi Kudpung,

I saw you wrote an article about Hanley Castle High School. I attended this school in the 1970's, how can I be of help by providing more background material for this article?--87.114.243.69 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I will just add that I also still live in Malvern. --91.125.134.9 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am also currently in Malvern. If you have any ideas for expanding the article, the history section would probably the best place to start. Remember though, that all additions to the article must be referenced to reliable sources.
 * BTW: You may wish to consider creating an account. It only takes a few seconds and you will have many more advantages. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting assistance
Need assistance with a vandal. User talk:Kenneth cooke245. Creating numerous hoax articles in the same vein as Jake Picasso. Consistently removing CSD tags beyond the fourth warning. Cind.  amuse  (Cindy) 09:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - been out all day and  JohnCD beat  me to  it. Let's keep all those deleted articles on  our watch lists in case of recreations under block evasion accounts. This block  is also  a classic reason  to  support  WP:ACTRIAL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you take a look at User:Kennethcooke786? He created a couple new accounts and has been back recreating more hoax articles, but nobody has apparently been working SPI. Sockpuppet investigations/Kennethcooke213. Thanks, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 12:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked per duck. I don't  think  there's any  need to bother the CUs on this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree... quacking loudly. Thanks, Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 13:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA
Hello! It's me again, with the usual topic ;). Thanks for the link you sent me during the summer- I had read most of it already, but there was still some nice information there. I'm preparing for yet another, and hopefully last, RfA, and in my preparations (going back over my talk page and the RfA, as well as the list of people willing to perform RfA nominations) I found your name pop up a lot. Especially since you opposed in my last RfA, I would really appreciate it if you could give me some quick feedback for the RfA- over tell me that it's not yet time, if necessary. --Slon02 (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be happy to look into  this for you. It  will  take a day  or two. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Templates as proof of notability??
Hey can you look at Carteret Yeshiva Deletion page, there some talk to keeping it just because it's part of Template. I would really appreciate if you can look through it and offer your expert opinion. Thanks The Terminator p  t  c  17:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look  at  my  comment  on here, you'll see that  inclusion  of links on navigation templates is entirely  arbitrary, and is not a criterion of notability - in fact no internal Wikilinks are. As far as I  can interpret from very recent  comments made by  Jimbo Wales, schools  do not have inherent notability. As far as I know, yeshivot  must also satisfy WP:ORG. You  may  wish to  ask  TerriersFan, also a coordinator of WP:WPSCH for his opinion too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank You. The Terminator p  t  c  19:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

WMF Summer of Research 2011
I came across this today, and found it enlightening. Seeing that you're a generally respected CSD authority on this site, I thought that the results might be pretty interesting for you, especially the breakdown of all CSD tags applied throughout the history of the site. Regards, -- Σ  talk  contribs  02:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the various SoR projects on my MetaWiki watchlist. I've made some comments there you might  find interesting. Do you  do  any  work at AfC? I'd be interested to have your feedback if you do. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
 * Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
 * Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
 * Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC).


 * Hey Kudpung. I'd completely forgot I'd sent this out, I wrote it just after putting up the straw poll on the Minimum requirements. Seems to take an absolute age for the request to go through. Hope it doesn't step on the toes of any newsletter you're planning to do.
 * By the way, after a quick chat on SandyGeorgia's page, I'm thinking about writing up a "report" of the findings on our data pages. After all, people on wikipedia are more interested in words than figures, so data analysis is unlikely to be interesting. If I can write up a report (which I'd really appreciate you checking over), it is hopefully going to lend more weight to the arguments.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Calabe1992 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Neighbor Pharmacy
Just wanted you to know that the PROD you placed on that page (which I endorsed) was removed, with a couple of references added in. I'm still less than convinced the place is notable, however. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sent to Articles for deletion/Good Neighbor Pharmacy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Good evening I appreciate your action regarding this discussion. I feel that trashing articles on Wikikpedia is seriously offensive.1archie99 (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Konrad Bercovici's granddaughter looking to expand his page
Noted author/sociologist/journalist Konrad Bercovici was my grandfather. There is a page up on Wiki that is painfully thin/sketchy considering everything he was known for and accomplished in life. Including 50 published books, 1000s of award-winning short stories, screenplays for Chaplin, work for the Nation and NY Times, for the founding of Israel...just an endless list. I am working on a collection of some of his unpublished work about people he knew...including Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Modigliani...and the book proposal into is basically a good Wiki page with lots of info on his life, quotes, sources, lists of published and unpublished work, review quotes, etc.

But the whole Wiki rules are pretty daunting in terms of formatting it for them. I would really like to find somebody to help get this up and running. As I am a writer, it is basically written...just need to get it up. Especially since there is a lot of interest in his work lately...Columbia U wants his papers... as well as in my mother;s work, painter and poet Mirel Bercovici who passed away this past December. And I want to keep the family legacy alive...

Please let me know if this is the kind of project you can become involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbrmc (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm afraid my time for article development is fully committed for at least the next few weeks. Nevertheless, you can consider doing this yourself, our editing rules are quite easy to grasp, just follow the links that have been placed on your talk page at User talk:Kbrmc. The main things you need to bear in mind are our Conflict of Interest policy, and that everything you write must be referenced to WP:Reliable sources. Good luck :)  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am almost
I am almost 18. I'm turning 18 in November. --#1 Fan of Queen (Talk | Contribs) 15:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... then I made a good guess ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Angeline88
Hi. If you have a look at this you'll see that this person seems to have a grudge against Jonathan Bate. User:Johnuniq reverted and pointed him/her to WP:BLP, and I've reverted several times, but (s)he seems impervious to reason. Any chance you could step in and do something drastic? --GuillaumeTell 18:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Toddst1 beat me to it. I was having my dinner! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Brenda Dawn Hirons
I came across this article which refers to the murder of my second cousin (adopted) Brenda Dawn Hirons. I would like to do some further research about this but uncertain where to start, and wonder if it is possible to contact the original author of the article. I have a few facts to add, about the events of the time, but some belong in the category of personal stories and I am uncertain if Wikipedia is the right vehicle for this.

Roseatbuzz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseatbuzz (talk • contribs) 07:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. The article (its correct title is Murder of Brenda Dawn Hirons) was created by User talk:Fallonlane around 15 December 2009 and has not  received any  substantial content  edits since then. I  have sent  the creator  an email  on your behalf asking  that they  leave a message on  your talk page at User talk:Roseatbuzz. This may or may  not  meet with  a response. By  all  means please expand the article if you  can, but  do  read up  on  the editing  help by  following  the links I  have placed  on  your talk  page. Do  bear in  mind that  any  information  you  add must  be sourced -  the article already  has long  passages of unverified information, and that  personal information  that  has not  been published in  some form elsewhere is un fortunately  not admissible. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Brenda Dawn Hirons
Thank you for the information and assistance - I'll hope to hear from the author of the article. I see you are interested in matters relating to Malvern where I grew up, so if I can help at all on this subject please let me know Roseatbuzz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseatbuzz (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Malvern is already a WP:Good Article, and shortly, I  hope, will  be undergoing  its review to  be come a WP:Featured Article. I wrote or expanded most  of the Malvern articles (see the links is the navigation box at  the bottom of the Malvern page), and related articles such  as those on schools in  the area. Most  of these could do  with  some expansion - referenced of course. I  am curently  in  >Malvern and have taken hundreds of photos to  beter illustrate these articles. pages about  settlements surrounding Malvern, especially villages and towns such  as Evesham, Pershore, and Upton also  need expansion. For a full list  of things to  do  in  the area, do  visit the Wikipedia Worcestershire project  that  I  started, and don't  hesitate to  join  that  project  if you  would like to  become an active Wikipedian. I  hope you  will be able to  obtaining  the help  you  need on  the Brenda Dawn Hirons article -  I`m afraid I'm personally  unable to  be of much  assistance there. Remember that  all  the blue words here and eleswhere on  Wikipedia are clickable links to  other pages. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Worcester Cathedral and the River Severn - geograph.org.uk - 263347.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Worcester Cathedral and the River Severn - geograph.org.uk - 263347.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What's this got to  do  with  me? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Presumably TWINKLE read that you had added to the description page and got confused, apologies :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting RfA observation...maybe
Maybe interesting only to me, but I got to wondering at the idea that the so-called "RfA regulars" are a somewhat-powerful crowd. I went back to my own RfA and looked through the names of those who expressed opinions, and while I knew some were no longer around, I was actually interested to see quite a large number are nowhere to be found (and, indeed, a few are indef-blocked). No way to capture those statistics easily, I would think...and not sure it's interesting for everyone, but I wonder if there's anything to be made of the fact that - "regulars" or not, at the point they opine - those who participate in RfA may no longer be around after not-too-much time anyway. (The conclusion to draw, perhaps, might point at a harder gauntlet, which might not serve us well.) Frank  &#124;  talk  22:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Frank. Yes, it's interesting. We've actually pulled a lot voting patterns from the database. The core of regulars has in fact remained fairly stable for the last 18 - 24 months, but it's true that after much more than two years it has usually changed completely. Due to the concentrated effort that is now being made to bring about some changes to the system  the existing group of regulars looks set to continue longer than that. Your own RfA was over 3 years ago, and while it is true that there are a lot of unknown names, 5 or 6 are still contributing to RfAs fairly regularly. Also since your RfA, participation on RfAs has grown significantly. Today's regulars are indeed a small but powerful crowd, and unfortunately, some of them  use their vote as a protest  against adminship as an institution rather than opposing the candidate for any appropriate reason, while others would appear to take part with the sole intention of simply being disruptive.  We've created a lot of useful and fascinating data at WP:RFA2011/VOTING, and since just only two days ago we've developed a useful little tool.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One note to your response - I suppose I sound like an "old guy" now, but when you say "a lot of unknown names", in fact, quite a number of them from that time were prolific, productive contributors whose names I was proud to count among supporters. They were anything but unknown just 3 short years ago. (I recall that while I'm "old" by Wikipedia standards, you're even older...we needn't get into specifics, but let's say I remember...hmmm, the United States Bicentennial...quite clearly.)


 * The tool you linked looks useful but I feel like I've participated in more RfAs than it records...is it me or the tool?


 * Finally, if there's some input you think might be useful to provide in this effort, let me know. I'm not so convinced that RfA either can or should be changed, but I'm not opposed either. And if change which makes the project better is in the offing, then I'm in favor. Frank  &#124;  talk  03:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Old' is relative. I've been around since 2006 but  I  only  consider myself to be a Wikipedia  since May  2009. When I  said 'unknown names', I  meant  as regards their contribs to  RfA -  it's quite possible that they  are still  very  active in  other areas and/or content  work; for many  people, the novelty of voting  at  RfA wears off after a while, perhaps because it  can take half  an hour or even longer to  do  one's own research rather than just  place a 'as per' vote. There were for example on my  RfA some pile-on that  followed someone who  got  things completely  wrong and who later changed their vote from  oppose, but  those who piled on did not  revisit  and change theirs.
 * The vote counter tool is set by default  to  examine only  the last 50  votes to  RfA but  this can be overridden to include them all. If you  have any  suggestions how to  improve it, please contact  Snottywong who  made it  at  my  suggestion.
 * Anything you  can bring  into  the efforts of WP:RFA2011  would be most  particularly  welcome. Good ideas and positive suggestions from  the right  people are always needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Rfa candidates report
Hi Kudpung. I mentioned before that I was looking to create a report on our investigations into candidates, so that editors could better understand the results. At the moment it is a sea of numbers, and I can see that it might be difficult to navigate through, so I've tried my best to summarise things in a report. My plan would be to then link the report from the proposal. I've written up the first three sections and was wondering if you could review them. Also, if you have time, would you be able to do a short write up (1-2 paragraphs, as per the above sections) regarding what happens on other wikipedias? WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay in replying, I've been snarled up with another  major Wikipedia issue, and been very  busy in RL these past few days. I'm  now preparing  for my  return to  Thailand on  Tuesday  after this long  stay  in the UK, so  I  won't  be very  active until  the end of  next  week. I've read your report  and I  think  it's a very  good idea.  It  sums our research  up  very  well and it will save voters on  an RfC having  to  wade through the masses of stats and tables we have created. It  will  also  help  to  keep  the proposal  statement  short, concise, and unambiguous.  I  think  any tables can be left out  of the report  alltogether, and simply  link  to them in  footnotes in  the way  we make inline citation  for articles. Where the tables are in  stand alone page sections, we can link  to the L2 headers, and where the tables are within  a section we can add a place anchor.
 * In spite of the way  the local  poll  went  on  the project  page, your summary  seems to  clearly  indicate arecommended  minimum bar of 3,000/6, and I  think that's what  we should head for in  the RfC. Typical experience with  RfC shows that  punters will  respond by  introducing  their own suggestions anyway, and failing  a clear consensus for 3,000/6, a closure will  probably  have to  be based on  a mean of the suggestions. We'll just  have to  ensure that  there is the maximum turnout for the RfC.
 * I'm not  sure it's important or helpful to  mention  what  the other Wikis do. I think  that  just  a brief mention  in  the proposal statement  that  other major Wikis already  exercise a minimum requirement, and link  to  the 'Other Wikis' section  that  I  researched and made. If you  would like to  chat  about  this in more detail in real  time before I  go  for my  flight, the best  way  would be to  Skype video me -  just  leave me a message about  what  time you  expect  to  call (UK time of course until Tuesday.) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador applications
There are a few good applications for ambassador pending approval. In particular I was hoping maybe you could comment on this one. -- My76Strat (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Give me...
....work to do. -- T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. That's no problem! You can of course work on the backlogs by voting on older AfD and MfD. The rest of what  I  suggest  below (collapsed to  save space on this talk page) will  of course be biased so  you'll  have to  decide whether you  support or disagree with  the objectives of the projects I'm working  on. You'll  need to do  a lot of reading  to  get  up  to date and back in  the fast  lane, but I  really  believe  it  would be worth it.

First of all  there is the schools project at  WP:WPSCH which  has a list (not  too long) of school pages in  need of urgent  attention. It also  has lists of schools that  are, or could be, potential GAs if they were given  a bit  of TLC. There is also a recent  discussion again  on the perennial  issue regarding  the perceived or inherent  notability  for high  schools. In a nutshell, Jimbo  made a statement  in  2003 that high  schools should have articles, and this was taken to  assume they  are automatically  notable, whether referenced or not, so  long  as they  really  exist. When asked to comment  during  the new discussion, he turned round on  this and said that  all  schools must  meet WP:ORG (or something  to  that  effect). Personally, I  don't  care one way  or the other, but  the coordinator of the schools project, and as an admin who  has to delete or close AfDs, I  would like a clear ruling so  that  I  know what  I'm supposed to  be doing. That said however, I'm in  favour  of keeping  the status quo for purely  pragmatic reasons: genuine high  schools are notable if proven to  exist, primary  schools are not  inherently  notable and must  meet WP:ORG, nd if they  don't  they  get  redirected to  the school district rather than deleted. This would avoid a mass deletion spree by  the deletionists of tens of thousands of school articles, and would enable us to knock some sense into  the NPPers. There just aren't enough  editors to  vote an close 100s of new AfDs.

WP:RFA2011 is still going  strong  and making  some slow, but  sure progress towards getting  its first  firm suggestion ready   for RfC. A local poll on  the project  page is still open  and you  can express your opinion  on  that. Your opinions and ideas on any aspect  of reform would of course be most  welcome. The task force members are a bit lethargic, and if you would like to  work more on  that  project, I  could suggest  you  becoming  a coordinator, but  this would need the consensus of the other coordinators. You'll see that I've recently  made a new navigation  template to  help  get around the various sub  pages more easily. let's not kid ourselves that  RfA reform is going  to  happen overnight, but  this is the first  RfA project ever that  has gained so  much  momentum and some support from  Jimbo.

Six months ago, an RfC was held based on research  into  NPP that  Snottywong, Blade, and I  did into  the near total breakdown of NPP as a process for monitoring  the quality  of new pages. The RfC ended in a clear consensus for the proposition  we made to restrict  the creation  of new pages to autoconfirmed users -  this was the only  viable solution  we could find to  the problem of NPP. This RfC was followed up with  a further central  RfC to  determine the terms for the trial before the new rule is to  be adopted permanently; the trial was passes by  consensus on  an almost  unianimous consensus. This new rule requires a small, and easy php change to  the user group permissions in  the site software. The request to  the developers, which  has to  be made through  a spin-off agency  called Bugzilla, was refused bluntly  and very  rudely  by  a couple of devs and/or WMF employees. And so a huge polemic rages now. There would be a huge amount of reading  to  catch  up  on  this, and it  would be up  to  you which side you  support; it's clear which  side I'm  on, because I  spent  100s of hours patrolling  new pages, patrolling  the patrollers, and doing  a lot of the research  for the stats.

There are two essays that  I maintain: Advice for younger editors which  I  rewrote for Brad in  a language more aimed at  10 -  14 year olds. The problem of this is keeping it  short enough  to  be sure they  will  read it, while saying  everything  that  needs to  be said,  and avoiding  WP:BEANS. I have now moved my essay Advice for RfA candidates to  Wikipedia space. If you have any  suggestions fr improvement  of these essays, please make them on their talk  pages.

Other semi admin work  that  you  can consider, is checking  out the editors who  have posted editor  review requests, and offering  your opinions there. If you are sure about  the information you  an provide, you  can try  your hand at  working  on  one or some of the help  desks -  it  would look  good on  your Wiipedia resumé -  I  would suggest  WP:EAR to  which  I  used to  be a regular contributor but  don't  have so much  time to  do  now. Jezhotwells is the resident expert there, but  of course anyone with  clue  can provide answers and/or redirect  the enquirers to  more appropriate help  desks. Consider doing some GA reviews, but  only  if you  feel  really  competent  to  do  it; if you've not  done one before, you  might  like me to  watch  over your shoulder while you  do  one.

Some of us experienced editors have decided to stop wasting  our time doing  the patrolling  th NPPers can't  cope with, in  order to  prove a point. You can help  by  patrolling  the patrollers, that  is, checking  their patrol logs against  articles they  have patrolled to  see if they  are getting  their tagging  right -  obviously you  won't  be able to  view any  pages already  deleted, but  if you  are suspicious, let  me know. Likewise, you can also  check  the recently  patrolled pages to  see if they  have been correctly  tagged, and if they  are recreations of previously deleted versions, and if the authors have previously  been warned for copyvio, attack, or vandalism etc. It  would be too much  for you  to  systematically  check  every  patroller and every  page, so  do this at  random. You'll soon get a feel from the titles of the pages if they  are likely  to  be a bit  odd, particularly biographies, and companies.

Take a look at my User:Kudpung/vector.js page and see if there are any scripts you  might find useful. You might  even  just  want  to  copy  the whole lot and then later delete the ones  that  you  don't find particularly helpful. If you are using  the monobook skin, you  just  put  them in  your monobook.js page instead.

Links for the autopatroll saga:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles Consensus for new user group
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles/Trial_duration Consensus for new user group trial
 * https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208 Bug request
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_creation_workflow Alternative WMF project
 * http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Article_creation_workflow#Are_we_really_examining_the_entire_workflow_here.3F Talk: Alternative WMF project
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol New Page Patrol project
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Article_namespace_checklist Instructions for New Page Patrollers
 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Patroller_work_load&diff=0&oldid=2703934 Research: New Page Patrollers
 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Patroller_work_load Talk:Research: New Page Patrollers
 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions The speed of speedy deletions
 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions

High schools;
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_83#Notability_of_High_Schools
 * Notability (high_schools)
 * Wikipedia talk:Notability (high schools) - important, takes the Jimbo  Wales talk  page thread even further.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't overload the poor chap! I'll reply to your comments in the section above as soon as I can, Kudpung. I'm not sure how easy it will be to Skype, as I'm rarely online on evenings and weekends - most of my wikistuff is done during down time at work - and they don't have the facility. Will see what I can do.   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I've got my work cut out for me! As soon as I get done reading ANI and catching up, I'll start down your list of pages ;). I hope WP:AVIATION/WP:AIRPORTS has been doing okay while I've been gone... T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 13:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I haven't  forgotten your content  work - it's the most  important  kind  of contribution  to  the encyclopedia of course. The stuff  I  listed above is ideal for you  to  get  your teeth into  if you still  want  to take your chance in  the snake pit  some day.


 * @Worm: Bear in  mind that  there  now appears to be a  new trend for WMF employees to  unilaterally  overrule consensus reached by  individual  Wikipedias if they  just don't like it -  they  are even quite uncivil about it too. Their reasons for doing  this are wonky  to  say  the least, but  it seems there is nothing  the volunteers can do  about  it because they  just  turn of the dialogue tap  when they  feel  like it. I'm  therefore rather beginning  to  feel  that  there is little to  be gained by  investing  my  time on  larger policy  issues. I'll  give the 3,000/6 Minimum Requirement proposal  a chance, but  if the community  supports it and the WMF refuses it I'll wash  my  hands of RfA reform, and any other Wikipedia improvement  projects. I'll  just concentrate on less controversial stuff, adding  content, and using  the admin tools on  some non contentious deletions and blocks. I'm  probably  also going  to  get  more involved in  my  work at  OTRS, and do  more SPI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin
It's not really all about being an Admin. I'm perfectly happy not being an admin, and don't see a reason to become one unless there is an absolute need to. There are too many rules to being an admin, and I'm happy not being constantly watched by ARB, and then having my every move analyzed. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 15:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Tofu, being an admin  is not  a big  deal  at  all.  The rules are the same as for any  editor, it's just  that  admins are the ones who implement  them  with  their tools. The only  big  deal  is getting  through  the snake pit  and coming  out  alive after 7  days with  that set of tools. Nobody  is watching  every  move every  admin  makes, many  admins slip  back  into  relative obscurity and gnome around with  their tools in  areas that  are not  contentious. It's not difficult  to avoid accusations of bad practice, but it's also easy to make the occasional small mistake that will almost always be forgiven. Only  those who  don't  have the right  mindset  but  somehow passed their trial  of fire, are going  to  be naughty and get  caught out.  And they  do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest, I think one who has no yearn to be an admin, would make the best admin. (Like you!!). But as they say, ¿Quien Sabe? Adios, mi amigo. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken Sutherland page
Hello Kudpong,

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Before submitting the article I requested feedback according the instructions in the Wikipedia guidelines and unfortunately no one reviewed the article or provided me any help. When I first loaded it on to Wikipedia I got the feedback that it needed improving. I took it to a professional journalist who helped to improve it.

Now I hear from you that it may be deleted and I need to understand what the problems are with the article. All the claims we have made are factual and many of them have web references. I'm happy to impove the article or add/delete more information but I need help understand what the problem is with the article.

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide or perhaps you can direct me to someone else who can help, I have honestly worked very hard to make this article factual and well written I must admit I feel a bit discouraged that it's been marked for deletion with little constructive information on what needs to be done.

Please Help!

Thanks in advance,

EUSCYHE -Cynthia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euscyhe (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are three tags at the top of the page which indicate the major issues with the article, so you should start with that. If you're having trouble, you can always ask a question at the help desk; I have done this myself, and you'll usually get a quick response.  Alternatively, you can contact either me or Kudpung if you hit a wall, and we'd be more than happy to help you.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

- Thanks for your response Blade- I saw the comment on the top of the page but they were very general. There are a lot of references in the article and I added more. One of the comments is that the article may need to be wikified which I don't know what that means. I used the template. If you could take a look and give me more specific things which need to be improved, I am happy to do so. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euscyhe (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blade for looking after my  talk  page while I  was at  37,000 feet in  Airbus's new super jumbo. Unfortunately  I  was only  travelling  cattle-class, but  it  was the smoothest  ride I  ever had in  1000s of flights over the last  50 years (including  those I  have piloted myself ;)


 * Euscyhe, the quickest way  to find out  what  all  our mysterious terms such  as 'Wikify' mean, is to  follow the links that  you  have already  been given on  your talk  page (all  the blue words on  Wikipedia are links to  pages), but  here is a quick  link  for that  one already. And do  please remember to  read WP:TPG and sign your posts. Happy  editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wnc logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Wnc logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The school has apparently  changed its name and logo and a new image has been uploaded by  another editor. The above file is redundant  and can be deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (WP:DTTR) T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just an auto-notification from Twinkle. Makes things easier if you have to tag something for deletion. :) Swarm  u /  t 19:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
--   Luke      (Talk)   01:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Knowing what someone's number is
Teamwork. :P You snatched it out from under me while I was undeleting to set it as A1. Annnnyway, keep up the good work, and cheers =) -- slakr \ talk / 01:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great minds ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/PTWS
If you're interested in a way to delete such stuff faster, there's a thread at the top of WT:CSD about a new criterion involving made-up subjects - more views are needed. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c. 03:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know - I've just added a comment in support of Alan's proposal for a CSD criterion fo products and services. What we have to remember however, is that there is not much  to  be gained by  adding  new criteria until we find a drastic solution to  the immense problems surrounding  NPP. Would you  believe that  they  are now actually  talking  about  allowing  G10 attack  pages to  stay  on  line for up  to  30 days? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, regarding that expansion of A7, I think it will be something like A9; much struggle will have taken place before it will only be partially done. To answer your question, I've asked Jorm to allow patrolling from the front of the queue, although I think the whole idea of the Zoom interface is giving incompetent patrollers a faster way to wreak havoc and destruction with the CSD process - and unlike Twinkle, we cannot blacklist them. What I truly believe is needed is a bot that does CSD tagging while the majority of the NPP force is asleep. → Σ  τ  c . 05:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly warming to your perspicacity - you're absolutely right about Zoom. Have you read the Bugzilla thread? You do realise of course who Jorm is ? Don't expect any leeway on this from the WMF, they are making a grand show of wanting screencasts of NPPers at work but they do appear to be  most clearly not in the slightest bit interested in any comments or suggestions that do not concur 100% with their own ideas. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read from the first comment to around 50 (monospace gets hard to read after a while); Jorm or Mr. Harris or whatever you like's responses are expected of someone who is paid to promote new editors, but his solution doesn't really work. He's easier to talk to on IRC though. → Σ  τ  c . 05:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Harris is, I believe, the Vice president  of Wikipedia/WMF. His comments on  the Bugzilla discussion  were particulary  scathing, caustic, and dismissive of the efforts made by  dedicated highly  experienced and mature volunteers -  not  what's needed to  keep  the good editors Wikipedia already  has. The WMF printed some disinformation on  a flyer that  was distributed at  this summer's Wikimania at  Haifa, in  an attempt  to  boost  registrations and leave the door open to  the creation  of any   pages whatsoever. The WMF apperars to be interested in  taking  the credit  for a possible increase in  newly  registered accounts whether they  are vandals, spammers, idiots, or whatever -  it seems to  be  just  the numbers that  count.  The misinformation  was that  30% of Wikipedia's best  editors began their Wikipedia careers as vandals. In  fact, it  was something  around 0.1%. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was wrong, Erik  Möller, alias User:Eloquence is the VP. If you  see his up  at  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence, it  may  explain  why  he has an apparent  tendency   to  be blunt and rude. Brendon Harris, alias User:Jorm (WMF) at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Jorm_%28WMF%29 is a designer, largely  responsible for user retention, but  as he nearly  caused me to  retire in  disgust, he's obviously  not  doing  a very   good job  of it. Nevertheless, as always, these are first  impressions, and I could be very  very wrong  about  these people until  I  have met them  personally. - Some people even think  I  am  an asshole ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to the NFT criterion at WT:CSD, I think that page doesn't really reflect the community's thoughts on CSD. There are a few users with very conservative views about CSD who make the consensus there seem much more immutable than it actually is.  I found WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC rather informative as to the actual number of people who want CSD to be a hermetic seal.  As for the fight with the WMF; I'm surprised Jimbo hasn't taken some sort of stand on one side or the other.  I think this is a rather important issue for Wikipedia, and I'm wondering how we can call his attention to this. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo was willing to stake his reputation on Pending Changes being permanently adopted. He has been taking, understandably, a back seat on most issues ever since - which of course as a 'constitutional monarch' divested of executive powers, is all he actually  can do. I get the impression that nobody (read 'WMF') really listens to him any more. It happens all the time: you create a new company, it becomes a success, someone comes along and does an aggressive take-over, out of respect they leave you with a position on the board but you are no longer the owner of your baby and there is bugger all you can do about the way they are going to ruin run things from now on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Article Help...
Hi Kudpung,

I am wondering if I can request your help in meeting the guidelines for publishing on Wikipedia as I'm a little confused. I know you deleted my last article submission and I was hoping to ask you some questions about it. I read through the notability and third-party guidelines and I do believe that my article is eligible - I'm wondering, though, if I just need to re-write the copy for it? I created a Wiki Talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SKLZ in hopes of receiving some feedback as well. I think the copy on this article is more suited for Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think and how I can best proceed. Thank you so much! Sawatdee Kaahhh!

Best,

Gabrielle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gclifford2011 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've had a quick look  at  the article draft  at  Articles For Creation. I  do  think  it  is still  a Trade Directory  piece, and hence an attempt to  promote your organisation  through  the pages of our encyclopedia.  it  will  however receive an expert  review by  the regular editors who  work  in  that  department. Depending  on  their verdict, the page will  still  need my  permission,  or that  of another administrator before it  can be published, because it  has been deleted three times already for being  an advert  and not  complying  with  our criteria for General  Notability, particularly WP:ORG,  and Reliables Sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:MessageDeliveryBot
Hello, I'm sorry that your message was not delivered in time. Would you still like to have it delivered? --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes please, it's now really quite urgent and it's too much for me to do manually. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, the bot is delivering the message right now. Sorry for the delay. --  Nascar 1996 ( Talk • Contribs ) 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Errors In Message Delivery
Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (News and progress from RfA reform 2011). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:


 * MauchoEagle - User is blocked.
 * RetiredUser12459780 - User is blocked.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

I smell sock
This sounds very familiar.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of notability request from GoatUp
Hi,

I removed the notability prod from GoatUp because both Minotaur Rescue and Minotron: 2112 have remained on the site for several months with no notability objections. Either Jeff Minter's iOS games are notable, or they are not: there is no apparent difference between them that would mean that those two were while GoatUp was not. Obviously if Minotaur Rescue had been prodded for notability I would have removed it and not written any of the further articles; I took the lack of a prod given a large amount of time as acceptance of such. Obviously I wouldn't have put time into writing the later articles if I knew they weren't wanted, so waiting for them to be written before deciding they're unwanted is unreasonable in my view. Prodding Minotaur Rescue at this point is really just immature: no-one else has had a problem with it since June, so why complain now just for the argument?

Hyphz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Um, "anything I can do to save it?" You're the one attacking it! If you want it to be saved, stop. There just aren't any peer-reviewed journals publishing documentation on video games that came out in the last month, and if its presence on the App Store and the listed reviews don't make it notable, then it isn't (but neither are many of the other iOS games that are listed - thus the consistency issue) Hyphz (talk)


 * Please keep your personal attacks to yourself - you will gain nothing with incivility and you may have noticed that I have already left a personal message on your talk page alongside the formal warnings. If the other articles have not been tagged it is entirely due to the breakdown in our New Page Patrol system that is currentky being resolved at the highest level by the WikiMedia Foundation. In order to avoid possible deletion, please provide Reliable Sources that assert notability as soon as possible. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Please rectify the problems with you signature.


 * I don't really think saying that "you're the one objecting" is saying anything negative about you as a person, but ok. What reliable sources would you accept?  I added a review link to Kotaku, one of the best known gaming journalism sites.  That apparently wasn't good enough.  I'm fine to try and find something else, but I need to know what category you'd accept, within the limits that it is an iOS video game.  Also, is there a general page of topics already deemed non-notable?  If not, I think it would be a good idea for one to be created, so that people do not waste time writing articles that are doomed from the start.  Hyphz (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:VG/RS is a good start. → Σ  τ  c . 19:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't make the rules here, but I have to implement them. WP:RS will tell you all you need to know about referencing and sourcing for notability. Getting software on sale at the AppStore is no big no big deal, I have some on sale there and reviewed in the editorial pages of 100s of computer magazines worldwide because I wrote the press releases - also no big deal. None of that complies with Wikipedia's criteria. Anyway, I don't see anyone tagging the articles yet for CSD, PROD, or AfD. The routine tags flag the articles so that someone else might know where to find WP:RS for them .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC).


 * WP:VG/RS suggests that reviews establish notability, and I did post links to several reviews. Although they are on journalism sites, the articles linked to are reviews, not copies of press releases. Hyphz (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Parts of WP:VG/RS suggest that  some sources might  establish  notability. It  needs to   be used with  discretion, but  if you  find that  it  accurately resolves your problem of referencing  new video game articles, then  you  are home and dry. The time to  really  start  worrying  is when someone tags your article(s) for deletion, which hasn't  happened yet, and it  would be unlikely  to  be me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: your recent note
Hello Kudpung. I received your message regarding the Jeff Minter game articles that I recently tagged for categorization and have written you a response here. -Thibbs (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your earlier post. I honestly thought you were trying to lecture me about tags and notability. I'm glad we reached an understanding. Happy editing. -Thibbs (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A quick note
Wow, I found your user page(s) via an editor review of User:%CE%A3. All I can say is you have given me a lot to think about. At this point, I don't even think of myself as someone who aspires to be an admin (though I am trying to learn as much about Wikipedia policy and procedures as I can and participate as much as possible), but I really appreciated your detailed rationale of what an admin should be and your look at the whole RfA process as a whole. The future of Wikipedia seems to be on everyone's minds recently. Quick request: I am already familiar with Snottywong's tools, but I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of a tool to evaluate decline rate of an editor's CSD tagging. My apologies if this should be apparent to me, but I tried searching around for it (including in your talk page archives) but was not able to locate it. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't think  there is a tool  of the kind  you  mention. On  the other hand, I'm  not  altogether sure of what  kind  of data you  would like it  to  reflect. Do  you  mean your deleted edits that  only  admins are able to  see? If it is for an evaluation  of your page patrolling, you  can of course look at your own user logs. If you  think a tool would be useful, do  describe what  you  want in  detail, and I'll see if we can get  SN to  make one -  particularly  if it would help  the WMFdevlopers who  are currently  looking  at  our suggestions to  improve New page Patrolling. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if there is a way track the percentage of pages for which a user placed a CSD tag which were speedily deleted afterwards, versus a speedy deletion nomination that was declined by an admin? I realize that you can look at things like CSD logs available through Twinkle to see which ones were nominated and now have redlinks, but of course that is not 100% accurate, since an article that received a speedy nom might have been speedily deleted but then recreated with a valid article, or a CSD nomination might have been declined, but then the article later be successfully PROD'd or AfD'd. Is there any way of assessing an editor's accuracy at CSD besides a manual analysis of something like a CSD log (assuming that a user chooses that option under Twinkle preferences).  I say this more for myself because I would like to know the percentage of articles that are ultimately speedily deleted that have I tagged for CSD, to see if I am at all off-base in my tagging, and I was also curious how people arrive at an decline rate for CSD? You mention it (Item #11. <5% declined CSD at New Page Patrolling) in your criteria for admins. Moogwrench (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. Well, only admins have access to  that  information because the deleted pages need to  be viewed to  see if your tag was accurate or not.  For that  reason, I  don't  think  it's something  that  can be automated -  at  least  not  by  a Snottywong  tool without admin access for the bot. Nevertheless, the pages that get ultimately deleted will show up in red in your patrol log. If you  were seriously  consider running  for RfA (which  you  are probably  not  yet), an admin  would review your deleted edits as part of the RfA process. If you  are worried about  your CSD tagging, I  can only  suggest  that  you  read the WP:NPP and WP:CSD pages over and over until  you  are sick  of them ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. I appreciate it! Moogwrench (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I notice, though, that the deletions follow a generic format " criterion: short description ". Couldn't the deletion reasons be searched and compared with the CSDlog, rather than looking at the page content itself? → Σ  τ  c . 07:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No quite sure what you mean, but it sounds interesting. Can you make a draft example in your sandbox and link me to it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You could find all of the speedies that you nominated by searching through your edit summaries in the User talk namespace (to find all of the notices you posted on the authors' talk pages) and then compare that to your undeleted speedy deletion requests (the tool doesn't list deleted edits). HTH  &mdash;SW&mdash; chat 00:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD tags
Thanks for the heads up. I had tagged it as a hoax because I wasn't sure if it was a BLP violation or attack page. It read close to it, but I figured the Hungarian Medal of Honor stuff and the like was enough to warrant a G3 for a hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Any BLP page that  looks like a hoax and suggests that  the subject  killed 50 people in  a rowboat must  be deleted very  quickly :) Attack templates leave a red alert  on  administrators'  control  panels. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Learn something new everyday, thanks again for the insight! Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Monty 845  15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

YGM
T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Signpost
Looks like ACTRIAL finally got noticed at the signpost, see Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-26/News and notes. See also the talk page of that article, there's an extended rant going on there. &mdash;SW&mdash; verbalize 04:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know who  wrote that, but  it's about  time and it  was exceptionally  well  written. It's full  of journalistic bias in  favour of improving  relations with  the WMF but  it  says what  needed to  be said.  Nevertheless, I  guess the WMF will  understand that their response to  the Bugzilla request  was  not  the way  to  go  about  retaining  the services of the dedicated and experienced volunteers. However, they  have taken note, and the vice CEO of the WMF and the developers are conferencing with  me by  Skype tomorow, so  progress -  of some kind -  is in  the air.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

woohoo!
Well, thank you  Joe! BTW, I hope you  didn't mind my  recent comments about  the BLPPROD ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go crazy
Look at Keepscases oppose vote here:. I'm on the breaking point. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I know.  I  think this time it  might  go  to  higher places, but  I'm  going  to  try  and stay  in  the background,  try  to  stay  cool  about  it  and not  let  it  upset  your other work here again.  BTW, did you  get  the mails  I  sent  you? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't. Where have you been sending them to? T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I just tested "Wikipedia's Email User" feature and it doesn't seem to work..(but I got other emails from Wikipedia)...you should know my direct email address, right? T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was sent  to  your aol  account. I  will  be  busy  for the next  hour,  but  if you  want  to  call  me in  an hour or so  you're most  welcome to  do  so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Try sending it directly, not through WP. . Compose a new email; and just paste your response in. If that still fails; I have another address you can try. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Decision regarding Reichman
Hi Kudpung,

In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman: I have re-written the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman citing references from Wall Street Journal, News Limited (News.com.au, a subsidiary of News Limited)Womens Mafia and fashion-maga-zine.

I am doing this because the article as it previously stood when you commented on it was 4 lines without notable sources as references. Will you please look at the article now please?

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


 * At this stage it's best to  allow the AfD to  take its course and let the community  decide whether or not  this article meets our criteria and is wanted  in  the encyclopedia. That  said, I  think you  have probably  done  all  you  can there to  defend the article.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  01:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

YGM
Try now. 99.103.110.162 (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's Tofu. It keeps logging me out on my phone. 99.103.110.162 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 02:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OMG - still  using  a phone to  work  on  Wikipedia? I thought  you  had got the problems sorted out with  the use of the family  computer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have; but I happened to be checking Wikipedia from my phone at that moment (I wasn't at the house). T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 18:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your continued help is needed
Hey Kudpung, sorry I didn't get your message on Meta until now -- I need to put one of those templates that say to contact me on en.wiki. I'd be glad to help out. When is your meeting, I hope I'm not too late. If I'm reading your request correctly, you'd like quarterly (3 month) visualizations of the relative categories of speedy deletions (A7, G1, etc) in terms of the number of articles created during that 3 month time period. So you could see, for example (making data up right now) that between Q3 2009 and Q3 2011 there has been a steady 3% per quarter increase in articles deleted for A7, with a corresponding decrease in articles deleted for G1? I'm imagining a line plot that contains each of the major CSD rationales, fluctuating up or down over time as certain rationales get more and less popular. What do you think? Also, can you use a template on my user talk page for the most prompt response? Stu (aeiou)I`m Researching Wikipedia 18:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Stu, thanks for getting back  to  me. The meeting  concentrated on  setting  up  the best  lines of approach to  the problems of unwanted new pages, with  emphasis on  the way New Page Patrolling  done and can be improved. The data you  are working  on  is essential, and will  be a great  help  in  reaching  our conclusions. Let  me know any  time you  have a beta of the table and charts ready, and I'll  let you  know if it  needs any  other tweaks. Thanks again  for all  your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: New Page Patrolling
Hi, thanks. I was almost sure that it was vandalism, but I always try to tone things down to avoid confrontations. In any case, the article would get deleted, right? Ratibgreat (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It would get  deleted, yes, but  there is currently  a drive at  WMF level to reduce the flux of inappropriate pages. Accurate tagging  is therefore imperative for  various automations, stats, and deletion  categories. Keep up  the good work, but  be sure to  apply  the correct  tag :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Arright :). Ratibgreat (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios
Hey Kudpung,

I'd like to personally thank you for keeping Wikipedia clean by deleting the article Small And Medium Enterprise(SME) exchange/platform and its subsequent renditions by Examsandacademics. At this point, let me introduce myself. I am a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador in charge of guiding this aforementioned user who happens to be a student taking part in the India Education Program. Hence, please do consider my assurance that I shall talk to this user personally and make sure he understands how he has violated Wikipedia policy. For any further clarifications you can revert back to me or any of the Campus Ambassadors participating in this program. I implore you to not unblock him until he has apologized to you for his copyvio and I get a chance to speak to him and make sure he has understood his copyvio. However, if he still does violate copyright again, feel free to re-block him at your discretion. However, as he is a student, just understand that this is not an intended act of vandalism, he's just trying to work on his assignment as has possibly taken a wrong route. I request a little bit of leniency. For any clarifications whatsoever, please feel free to revert back to me on my talk page.

Regards, Debastein1 (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)