User talk:Kudpung/Archive May 2010

Re:Fighting vandalism[edit]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by sort of my own posts first? Could you explain? Thank you! Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:soccerbase[edit]

When mattythewhite said that, he was only talking about 3 stats not 10-15. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thank you ever so much. Just one last thing.I just wondered if you have looked at my contributions and how many i do a day and if you would consider nominating me to be an administrator. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look at your edits quite a lot, that's why I jump in occsionally with some advice. I never personally criticise your accuracy though, because I don't know anything about football. As several editors have mentioned before, there's not a lot that becoming an admin will do to advance the good work you already do on football articles. Being an admin means having to do a lot of unpleasant tasks like telling people off, and excercising perfect judgement at WP:AfD, WP:CSD, WP:RfC, WP:ANI, and stuff like that. I really don't think you're ready to be an admin yet, besides, it would take away too much of your time editing football articles. Admin work hasn't got much to do with football or any one subject in particular. I've been around Wikipedia for a long time, but you can bet your life if I wanted to be an admin they would fail an application from me too, even though I keep my nose clean. My advice is just keep plodding on for a while and make sure your work is beyond reproach. Try to diversify a little bit more from only editing or updating stats, to show that you have an all round knowledge of other subjects, after all, a high edit count is not important for being a good administrator. One thing you could do in your favour is put a bit more about yourself on your user page. People like to know about your background and why you likelike working on the encyclopedia. Look at this for example, It says rather a lot, probably more than you would need to say about yourself, but it's not as boastful as some.--Kudpung (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AOBF[edit]

Hi Kudpung! Can I suggest you consider the dangers of accusing others of bad faith? In the last 24 hours you've accused me of attempting to "bully" you and user: 93.96.148.42 of making an "inflammatory statement" and speaking "gibberish". All either of us have done is point out in perfectly civil ways that you have made mistakes on our respective talk pages. Might it be sensible to take the heat out of your responses to other editors? To quote WP:CIV, to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated Alistair Stevenson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Alistair, nothing was pointed out to me in anything resembling 'polite and civil ways'. The heat was in the totally snide and unnecessary comments regarding my health and my age, and I gave a perfectly accurate explanation and requested that future comments be of a less disparaging nature. The heat was in a totally rude retort at a template mistakenly placed in GF on someone's talk page. There were undeniably uncivil undertones in both editors' comments - it's hardly surprising that they invited a clean, polite, but terse reply suggesting they keep their own houses in order. I certainly don't treat constructive criticism as an attack, but I'll fight like a dog when I am blatantly insulted for doing otherwise irreproachable work on this encyclopedia and respecting the rules. I suppose that you have never made a typing error on a talk page or another mistake when cleaning up some suspected vandalism - such as omitting to sign your messages ~~sign your messages~~, even if they are only on a user talk page.-Kudpung (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be easy producing "irreproachable work". I wish you luck with it. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not difficult if one decides from the very beginning to obey the rules, and follow the guidelines. If one does not know something, one doesn't post it. If one has no real reason to be abusive, one does not offend other editor - one assumes good faith instead, and it's absolutely taboo to introduce remarks about age, race, health, gender, or intelligence. You'll get used to it by the time you have a bit more experience - it always takes a while and I made quite a few more typos with my English QUERTY keyboards years ago. I tried to avid upsetting people though and suggesting they might be physical or mental cripples. Do try to keep a cool head in face of innocent mistakes made by busy editors. There is no obligation, but you might also like to consider configuring your user page so that we might know with whom we have the honour of communicating. Be aware also that due to the similarity between your and 93.96.148.42's edit histories, edit counts,and near simulaneous posts, a WP:SPI might be taking place - bots can pick these things out automatically.--Kudpung (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia unjustified!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elgar[edit]

Thank you so much for your kind words! I have nearly finished - now only the musical analysis section to complete, then perhaps off to peer review. - Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 01:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I responded Tim 1357 ^talk 01:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility[edit]

If the rude message on my talk page came from a robot, why was it signed by you?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Standard" or rude - still don't understand why YOU sent it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I sent it because if I hadn't sent it, someone else would have. " I don't quite understand this attempt to avoid responsibility.--113.53.112.84 (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your are avoiding responsibility by not wishing to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and etiquette. Please also remember to sign your messages.--Kudpung (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edit wikipedia. I do not like your personal attacks.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this - "There are some signals that in our more mature projects, we are not as effective as we could be in helping new editors become active contributors. There are also signals that more experienced editors and administrators are leaving due to stubborn behavior, let alone outright hostility. Respect, civility, and good faith are critical to ensure a long and active life-cycle at Wikimedia. The Foundation may be able to reduce community friction by communicating their strategic priorities, and by improving community tools and processes in order to enable more constructive experiences. Wikimedia Priorities for 2015" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it - I gave you the link to it. --Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe think it through:)93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I got a rude message wrongly accusing me of mis-editing an article from you, and you are not at fault (but I am?).93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you actually read my complaint - viz that you accused me of editing Grade_I_listed_buildings_in_Worcestershire badly, when I had made no edits to the page, as shown in the history! I don't understand why this message came signed by you.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed that already an the matter is closed. That was an old error, it can happen in GF and I retracted it. I do think now that you are unnecessarily prolonging your series of complaints, and I suggest you are using straw man arguments. We wold both probably do more for the encyclopedia if we get back to doing some serious editing.--Kudpung (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Let's be fair about this, you got a standard Wikipdia template message, designed by and agreed upon by a consensus of Wikipedia participants. You need to adapt to our way of improving the encyclopedia if you wish to be part of the community. I've said before that I'm prepared to help, but the way you have chosen to communicate with me from the very beginning is contrary to the very paragraph you have cited above. --Kudpung (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explained why I got this message in error signed by you. You did not apologise - but started to attack me. I am part of Wikipedia.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/New questions[edit]

Hi, Kudpung. I made a subpage to discuss possible new standard questions for RFAs. You had indicated that you like the idea but the wording could be improved. When we have time, I hope we can do that at the subpage. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Pronunciation respelling key[edit]

Hi. In case you're not already watching this page, you might be interested in the current conversation. Maurreen (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work of Art Neutrality Question[edit]

What are you complaining about? You have put a neutrality and POV flag on the article, and on my talk page without explaining what needs to be balanced in the article. This is not a productive way to edit - you should write a proper explanation on the talk page of Work of Art, rather than lazily 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)flagging the article as infringing your interpretation of wikipedia rules. This would help improve the encylcopedia.[reply]

Tagging (flagging) articles that need attention is a perfectly normal process, it's oneof the standard ways of improving the encyclopedia, and it's nothing to get upset about. If you know the rules, policy, and guidelines, you can easily address the various points and significantly improve the article in question. Not only was an explanation placed on the article's talk page, but the tag also placed a semi automated explanation placed on your talk page, and a manual addition to the notification template was also made (see the italics). The article was tagged for a clear case of not being compliant with Wikipedia content policy. I don't see how that can be classed as lazy editing. Nobody is stalking you, nobody is being uncivil to you, and nobody is trying to scare you away from working on the encyclopedia. Such messages are intended as a help. Please do take time to check out the links I gave you, and read up on the various policy, without taking their pargraphs out of context and making straw man arguments. I know the policy is complex, but we all have to learn it. If I revert your removal of that tag and than you remove it again, that would also be against policy. But I don't think it would be very helpful and it would probably only serve to prolong the resistance you have to my help.If you really want some help in understanding the NPOV rules, please don't hesitate to let me know, and I'll explain the policy, but I would appreciate it if you could ask me in a less combative way.--Kudpung (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before flagging for neutrality it is normal to state what you mean. Have you done this? One line saying you agree with my suggestion to delete 10 lines does not do this. It is lazy, and if you check the guidelines I think you will find it is not recomended.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, you put a template on my page accusing me of POV editing, but I don't know what POV you mean. It is totally unreasonable to complain that editing has breached neutrality without explaining how.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you wrote above meets definition of a straw man argument - IE nothing about the article AT ALL. Was not complaining about stalking, but lazy editing.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at User talk:Keith D/Archive 20.
Message added 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Keith D (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not know if you saw this but have archived it now & changed link above. Keith D (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep off the grass[edit]

You know, "Keep off the grass" (not to be confused with Keep Off the Grass or cannabis withdrawal) could be notable. The topic of whether people are allowed to walk on lawns has been hotly debated over many decades: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Now, I'm not going to perversely create such an article to spite you, but these sources could well be incorporated into Lawn. My point is that topics that appear to be ridiculous might not be - and to not tempt people to do things you don't want them to do... Fences&Windows 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please lay off the sarcasm/attacks[edit]

I know that we have our disagreements, but please keep your comments at the level of content and refrain from ad hominem attacks against Americans (for example here and here). If you have a very low opinion of the knowledge and intelligence of Americans, as some of your edits indicate, please try to keep it to yourself rather than let it affect your work on Wikipedia.

For what it's worth, I was born and educated in the UK, and the other editors who work on the pronunciation/linguistics pages come from all over the world. Even if we were all USA natives who had never stepped foot outside the country, that would not be a justification for indulging this apparent bugbear of yours. Please bear in mind that Personal Attacks include "[u]sing someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". That seems close to what you are doing here: where the bulk of your edit could be paraphrased as "You're American so what would you know about RP?". Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I regret to say that you really didn't answer my main point. You say that you "have absolutely no intentions whatsoever of disparaging the Americans or any other nation", but that is what you clearly did in the diffs that I link to above. I agree with you that some of the other editors have also behaved unacceptably at times. However I do sympathize somewhat with their frustration. There is a tendency to ignore or evade specific questions that other editors put to you, and substitute "reams of verbiage" -- "stalked, hounded, abused, and slandered", to take one random example :) . Unfortunately this has all combined to make the IPA discussion rather less civil and productive than it might have been. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will be relieved to know that the incivility, that was begun mainly by one particular editor whose ego rather than knowledge has fostered so much ill feeling, has now forced me to join the ranks of those who have retired for the same reasons from any further participation in the possible improvement of these IPA issues.--Kudpung (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at User talk:Kudpung/Brontë translation.
Message added 13:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry looks like I forgot to give you a prod when I posted this. Keith D (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]