User talk:Kudpung

Please sign your message.

Archives

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Thoughts on NPP-AFC merge

Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC#Thoughts on NPP-AFC merge. Please continue the discussion there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI re my closing 178's threads

I reclosed the threads by user 178, this is the result: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Medeis_.2F_.CE.BC.CE.B7.CE.B4.CE.B5.CE.AF.CF.82_violating_WP:TPOC_again μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

About the removal of the RoboForm page.

Hello. You deleted the RoboForm page and mark it as an advertisement. However, it does not contain calls for purchases or anything like that. I would like to restore it. Tell me, please, how to change the content of the page so that it passes through your edition.

Thank you!

Arnold Brown (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Arnold Brown. I'm sorry, but it does actually. It's as blatant a piece of advertising as we've ever seen and it's even written in classic 'ad speak'. Please remember that a promotional text does not need to include "Buy this!" to be an advert - even one-word branding is an ad. The owner/manufacturer stands to benefit from the very presence of the article in Wikipedia and therefore we can't use it. It would need a complete rewrite to be acceptable, but even then it won't pass our notability criteria - which are something else entirely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Kudpung:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linguist^unEins^uno 21:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

LTA proposal for WikiExperts

Notifying you here as a courtesy since you closed the community ban discussion for WikiExperts. Don't know if you watch the LTA talkpage so: WT:Long-term abuse#Propose LTA case for WikiExperts ☆ Bri (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Bri, thanks for the heads up. Pingig Doc James. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

AZOperator and John from Idegon

I was going to warn AZOperator for continuing to harass User:John from Idegon [1] after being told to drop this by User:Barek [2], but I see you have already given him a final warning [3] and further comment [4] Meters (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Appeal to Common Sense

Kudpung, I would suggest that you limit your involvement with this the discrepancies between me and John. I am not trying to bullying John, in fact, until today, I never even gave him a formal Wikipedia warning. Your input regarding this discrepancy is exasperating the situation, and I would hope you want this all to come to a peaceful resolution. AZOperator (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

AZOperator, my involvement is as an admin who is not involved with the content of your dispute. You are seriously near to being blocked. Do not reply here, any further discussion will be on your talk page but I advise you to choose your language very carefully indeed.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

The give for hard works wikipedia people.

บุญพฤทธิ์ ทวนทัย (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

M1717

Hi You have launched the first speedy deletion, but for that case the AfD is more suitable. So, I have replaced the template by a better. I haven't made a point. I challenge Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's clausure. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Panam2014, Kudpung did not add a speedy deletion template, it was a WP:PROD. Prod is a very simple process, one editor, Kudpung add the template, and any other editor, you in this case, can remove it for any or no reason at all. That ends the process. If Kudpung or any other editor wants to pursue deletion of the article, the next step is for them to nominate it for deletion. You should never nominate an article for deletion in someone's name as you did there. If you believe the article should survive watch it and if someone decides to nominate it for deletion using AFD then you can enter into the discussion. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's closure was correct and it agreed with your recommendation that the article be kept. ~ GB fan 14:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

School..

Since, you are the school-project coordinator, is there any encyclopaedic benefit to list the name of past principals (which cannot be sourced to the best of my effort(s)) and/or the house system at Sumedha College, Gampaha? Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Lists of former head teachers are generally part of a school article. See WP:WPSCH/AG: Former headteachers/principals – A list of former headteachers/principals, with a short description of their achievements, is often useful. Long lists should be split into a separate article (such as the List of headmasters at Eton College). We do not generally remove te list if it is not directly sourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Promotion

See the TP of this User_talk:Maja_Polovina - I just did a G11 on one of the promotions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Speedy was declined. The tour articles look pretty marginal to me. The first one e.g. has completely uncited dates & attendance figures; the single source is some YouTube footage. If there was just the one I'd boldly redirect back to Lepa Brena. A bundled AfD would probably be required at this point? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Zebedee's TP. I think it's important to get a final determination if we're going to allow WP to inadvertently be the promotional/marketing arm of concert ticket sales for companies like Ticketmaster. If the performer is notable, we can always include mention of an uncoming tour in the prose, but there is no need to list each planned performance to help them sell tickets. The tour doesn't inherit notability from the musician/singer/performer. It becomes "notable" after it occurs based on the criteria in WP:NTOUR. I'll add that if it's a farewell tour or similar highly publicized tour that's been mentioned in mulitiple RS in MSM, that's a different story. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Garageland66

Hi Kudpung, I hope you are keeping well. You're probably already aware, but the above is back on his independent/private school hobbyhorse, hours after his latest, unrelated, block expired. Examples can be seen at Harrow, Eton and Charterhouse. Having failed to get private school in the first paragraph of the lead, he's now putting it in the second paragraph, with misleading edit summaries. I've reverted but I suspect another block will ultimately be required. Sorry to bother you with such a dull waste of time, again! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't have time to look into the details at the moment, KJP1, but this editor is opposed to private education and is in breach of WP:TEND. Pinging John from Idegon. His non-school edits need investigating too. TonyBallioni has a sharp eye for this kind of thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the fees for 2017 and made clear that, if there's any confusion, this is because Eton et al are private sector schools, as oppose to the free-at-the-point-of-use public sector schools. I haven't changed the description from independent school to private school. So what's the problem? Did you just want to thank me for updating the fees? Garageland66 (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"His non-school edits need investigating too" Do they? And why's that? KJP1 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง How did the 'investigation' go? Being as there have been no further developments, one can assume that that statement was just supposed to be intimidatory.Garageland66 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

(note to self): 05:34, November 15, 2017 Tedder (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Garageland66 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 6 months (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. See also WP:TEND. Using misleading edit summaries even after warning. Refusing to drop the stick on consensus wording.) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Biography article Robert E. Lee

As you have mentioned your interest in biography, I am hopeful of finding some guidance here on how to (1) write a good biography of a controversial figure of some complexity, and (2) avoid an edit war with an editor who seems to have several warnings on their Talk page -- this can happen just because of post sequencing, I myself have had one such warning when I was defending a recently attained consensus via a Request for Comment against one of the minority editors who initially refused to allow the agreed to language to be posted.

Two of my contributions in the section "Lee's views on race and slavery" have been reverted at Robert E. Lee by User:Snooganssnoogans without discussion. I have tried to engage in discussion, posting on Snooganssnoogans Talk page, and at Talk:Robert E. Lee. Snooganssnoogans seems to misunderstand the application of WP:SYNTHESIS. There has also been a side discussion on my Talk page, about my being sarcastic, and I have offered to remove the offending language, but nothing is specified, only a blanket accusation, there is no response. So far, my only encouragement has been a "like" notice from Rjensen at my trying to open up a discussion on Talk.

My concerns are currently that (1) overall, the sequencing of a section in a section should be chronological relating the subject's life as it unfolded. (2) Nuances in the references are removed, and points not found in the sources are added. When I removed one of the unsourced asides, Snooganssnoogans reverted my edit. (3) At Talk:Robert E. Lee "Re: Snooganssnoogans reverting edits" there also seems to be a misunderstanding by other editors of how to apply wp:synthesis. It is my understanding that related sourced information can be elements in the same sentence, whereas wp:synthesis is meant to avoid drawing unfounded conclusions not made in a reliable source. Those objecting to my proposed contributions seem to think that "wp:synthesis" as an objection can be used to exclude any sourced contributions to WP.

I answered the two objections to my first draft proposal by providing additional sources, then re-crafted an amended entry noting sources at "Avoid out-of-context misrepresentation by including reliable sources". There is no response from the previous editors making comments. So far, there is only a repeated revert to my placing the section in chronological order by Snooganssnoogans without discussion on the Talk page.

Any suggestions of where I may be missing the mark? Any ideas of how to proceed? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheVirginiaHistorian. I am honoured that you have come to me for advice, but actually, biographies are not my specialism at all. My focus is on improving our methods of controlling and reviewing new articles, while at the same time taking care of the WP:WPSCH project. Like many Brits of my generation, having been raised during the last years of the British Commonwealth I know more about Africa, Australia, Burma, Ireland, India and Pakistan; I don't have a clue about American history - we weren't taught any of it in school. So I'm really the wrong person to ask. If after trying some more, you are unable to come to an agreement over the content with the other editors concerned, I suggest you try taking the issue to WP:DRN. There are some resident editors there who are skilled at unravelling such things and they may well be more acquainted with the USA than I am. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You may want to ask this question at WP:MILHIST - I assume the people over there have dealt with writing articles on controversial historical figures. They'll probably be able to help. Galobtter (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for the leads. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Mirza Naim Beg

Thanks for the review and corrections. Really appreciated!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakhtar891 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Private Club Marketing

Kudpung I didn't realize there was a draft mode to create pages. Is there also a way to test if a page meets Wikipedia's guidelines? zackbates

(talk page stalker) zackbates, please sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes. That adds a link to your talk page and a timestamp along with your signature, and is required. To answer your question, Articles for Creation is what you are looking for. John from Idegon (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of autopatrolled user right

Hello Kudpung,

could you elaborate why you removed the autopatrolled user right ? Inwind (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help. For starters, ginning out stubs into mainspace citing only 1 reference that doesn't qualify as a RS:

1. 11-11-2017
2. 11-11-2017
3. 11-11-2017
4. 11-11-2017
5. 11-11-2017
6. 11-11-2017
7. 11-11-2017
8. 06-20-2017
9. 06-10-2017
10. 05-02-2017
11. 01-28-2017
12. 10-21-2016
13. 05-10-2014
14. stub, 2 refs
15. stub, no refs - links to company website
16. User:Inwind/Cinema_francaise - many, many names of actors/actresses - stubs, 1 ref

The above are the kinds of articles that we, as reviewers with auto patrolled rights and as volunteers at AfC keep in Draft space. After reviewing the lists shown on your user page, much more of the same is revealed. I would think that is justification for revoking one's auto patrolled rights. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)