User talk:Kudpung/Archive un 2014

Help Me
Hi Kudpung nice to meet you first i want to introduce my self my name is Albert Ong and i leave in Surabaya, Indonesia .before that i am sorry if my English is bad. I am the beginner of the Wikipedia contributor so i don't really know the Privacy and Policy. I just want to ask if i contribute (post) with my own word (not copy and paste) from other sources is that allowed or not ?

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertong27 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Unfortunately you  may  not  use material  copied from  other sources. If  you  wish  to  rewrite the article in  your own words, you  may, but  you  must avoid close paraphrasing. The content  you  provide must  also be sourced to  independent, reliable third-party sources. See: WP:CITE and WP:RS. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Graphic Design
So looking at the page I posted on experiential Graphic Design, can you please explain what is copied from the original page as Idid change it from the original post, but there are words that are used in the official definition that cannot be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive Roux (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please fully read the deletion tag that has been placed on Experiential Graphic Design and then click on the link that  says Duplication detector report. I  think you'll find the result is self-evident. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Industrial Designers Society of America
what did it have to do with me? -No.Altenmann >t 01:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not Kudpung, but looking at the deleted history, I see that you created the article back on 30 June of 2005. Twinkle's built in scripts automatically notifies the article creator as a courtesy.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  02:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that looking at 's talk page and the article it now appears that they created the article by copying it from a source. When in fact it was  that added the copyrighted content almost 5 years after the article was created.  Designerx even said in their edit summary they were copying the content from the IDSA website in their edit summary, "Big CHANGE. Added history article directly from IDSA site. Duh. Why didn't IDSA do this?".  GB fan 10:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But the script in TW is stupid, it just looks for the first edit. But I agree that the copyright infringement wasn't Altenmann's doing.  I wonder if  should consider just restoring all the pre-infringing edits. Looking at it, there wasn't much to save and not sure if it passes WP:GNG by 2014 standards. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I confess I missed that there may have been a non-problematic version originally. I see that the problem tracks back to 2009, with the edit summary Big CHANGE. Added history article directly from IDSA site. Duh. Why didn't IDSA do this?. As Dennis notes, I can restore it to the pre-2009 version, although there's not much there, and it isn't sourced. While not a BLP, so no automatic requirement for sources, I doubt it would pass an AfD. It would be nice if someone wanted to start over and create at least a passable stub. Is that someone you are interested in doing? If not, seems like a waste of time to restore, then propose for deletion.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry GBFan, I see you already made that point.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't the content require sources? bobrayner (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Non-BLP articles don't require sources, per WP:V, which states that facts must be verifiable, not verified. There is no policy requirement for sources in an articles except BLPs, although most will end up at AFD and either get sourced or deleted. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  14:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This might not be the best page for a philosphical debate, but WP:V doesn't distinguish between "verifiable" and "verified" in that way. The policy says: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." WP:V does not say that there's some intermediate state of verifiable-but-not-verified which doesn't actually require a reliable source to be present in the article. bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From a technical point, it seems to. Material must simply be able to be verified, but it doesn't require that all fact are proven before being added. Hence the tenses of verif* are chosen carefully.  Once challenged, material must be verified or removed.  Wikipedia has never had a policy that requires an article to be sourced to exist, only that such verification is possible, ie: it is a fact and not original research or WP:synth.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have the "this article has no sources" tags.  It is expected that others will come in and fill out more material, add more sources, etc.  But in the end, articles without sources aren't optimal, but they are allowed under policy. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Kbrose has created a new stub for it (and quite rightly too), and I've added some independent sources. The article had nearly 100 incoming links and in my view would pass an AfD with the current references. Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

sorry for sloppy posting the question @User:Kudpung. i vaguely remember there is a guideline (and common sense) that when handling a copyvio one must check the history first and instead of deleting, one is supposed to restore last known good version. i hope in the future it (rush deletion) will happen less often. -No.Altenmann >t 15:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone for stalking and taking  up  this discussion  on  my  behalf. I  certainly  had not  realised that the semantics of verified vs verifiable  somewhat  conflict  both  in  different policy  and/or guideline pages and in  the way  they  are interpreted by us. I  will  certainly  bear all  this in  mind in  the future.  I am sure there are plenty  of articles that  have been created as short articles or stubs by  the original  author in  good faith but  which over the course of time have come to  include copvios and  other irrelevant and/or disallowed content  added by  others. Thanks again  for an interesting  conversation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kingsley.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kingsley.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. Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * File:Kingsley.jpg has been replaced by another image, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Roovet
no one is making any personal attacks on admins if anything there making personal attacks on me, this is a very funny site and now Im beginning to see why people do not believe everything thats on this site , let me just state some facts for you quickly due to the fact that you say you agree with roovet being ok for speedy deletion , after talking to a few admins last night on live chat. maybe you can tell me how you are saying roovet is showing no importance and yet this is  MetaCrawler,  Harvester42, WebCrawler and SideStep please tell me where are there reliable References a few of them have none at all yet the pages are still on wikipedia no one has nothing to say about them no one is even talking about it , the reason I'm using just these as examples are the fact the roovet was labeled as a  Metasearch engine. along with these. so maybe you can tell me what makes these search engines more important then roovet, roovet has more reliable References then all of theses also , the newest article was written more detailed then the last few. The thing that get me is you say hey we will give you time to fix some things but you do not give no one time to fix anything. you do not tell the writer who is writting the article whats wrong with it soo he can fix it. you just hit the delete button. the reason I no you guys are 100% wrong is the fact that you still can not tell me why the articles I mentioned above have not be deleted. you say wikipedia is all about facts when those articles state no facts or reliable References.

you should check the last roovet article that was recently deleted and tell me that it was not more detailed then the articles i mentioned above or at leaset have better  References then them. I must say you guys are funny !!!!!--Thewolf12 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. There are quite a few things you do not  understand about  Wikipedia, such as for example the use of talk  pages (I have added a title to  this thread). I  had already  reviewed the deleted material and I  consider the deletion  to  be appropriate. Comparing  Roovet  with  other articles is not  a justifiable argument, it  comes under WP:OTHERSTUFF which  I  encourage you  to  read. There are over 4 million  articles in  the English  Wikipedia and it  is impossible for the 100 or so  active admins to  check  them all, so  some slip  through  the net. For the relevant  deletion  criteria please see WP:DELETION which  has already  been explained to  you. If  you  still  disagree with  the deletion, your next  course of action  would be at  Deletion review. You  have some reading  to  do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)