User talk:Kudpung

Have you remembered to sign your message

Page deletion

Dear Kudpung, I kindly request that you please restore a page that you deleted: "Soulaymane Kachani" (WB:PROD July 23, 2013). The page was not well structured, was lacking references and some links were not working. If you restore the page, I will edit it and it will hopefully conform to your standards. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Columbia Faculty (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Kundpung, I'd like to request you to restore a page deleted by you named 'Esab' at 12:42, 22 August 2013. I need to work on it more and it will be helpful for the concerned community. Please restore the page. User (Talk) 20:13, August 23, 2013 BDT

Jupiter

Sorry for polling. The edit hasn't been reverted, So it appears to be alright. I won't do any more polling. I'll leave a message on the article talk page instead.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 22:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

As you have been quite active in the field of RfA reform, you might like to take a look at a rough draft I threw together at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Adminship RfC sandbox. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

i've had a quick look at it. I'm not quite sure where you would like to go from there, it seems to be a summary list of every thijng that has alrady been discussed over the past couple of years. Note that no proposed changes have ever succeeded, but that is possibly due to users misunderstanding the purpose and goals of Wikipeda RfC discussions. I'll be happy to discuss more when I get back to my office computer and my regular account. . --KudpungMobile (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I got the idea from a RfC to define the CheckUser role at Wikidata. To me, my RfC draft seems to get right to the point instead of requiring participants to do a bunch of reading. However, it might need to have some more parameters added regarding the removal of adminship. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  18:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to criticicise but it comes very hard on the heels of the series of RfCs launched by Dank earlier this year. Because it is always the same people who contribute to discussions on admin stuff, there is a risk that they will begin to tire of too many recent RfC. However, as an RfC, it will fail because it addresses too many issues in one Request For Comment. This is characteristic of Wikipedia discussions and that is why the current RfC on AfC, for example, has ground to a standstill. The participants will be spread around so many alternatives that there will not be sufficient quorum for any of them - bear in mind that a ´´singlé´ proposal RfC of this ilportance that will change just one of those major policies will need at least several hundred participants. Thete is also the fact that if any one of these proposals woul need a tweak to the site software to enable or disable n'ew user rights and/or tools, the Foundation can and will veto any community consensus as it deems fit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you think I should try narrowing down the alternatives, perhaps to only discuss either term limits or de–adminship? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The best RfCs are the ones that only address single topic and leave little scope for forking. That said , I still think this comes too hard on the heels of the recent round of RfCs on admin reform. That's why I have one RfC draft waiting in my sandbox. May be you would like to check it out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I was aware of it, but now I've read it through. I like your RfC draft. When do you plan to go active with it? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There have been a couple of recent discussions about similaŕ stuff at WT:RfA and WP:BN so I thought that I would at eqst wait until the dust has settleled. I will point out that my RfC is strictly designed to be only an opinion sounding discussion rather than a formal proposal to gain a consensus on the proposed idea. I believe in testing the waters berfore wasting community time - every wasted edit on a discussion could have been a new addition of content to an article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC).

Well, I think you could probably run it now. Then again, you know much more about the RfA environment than I do. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Mazurek Dąbrowskiego move

Hi Kudpung! Could you please move Mazurek Dąbrowskiego back to Poland Is Not Yet Lost? The latter is the consensus from the most recent move request where a conclusion was reached. I have let User:Rzuwig know that he can then open a new move request per WP:BRD. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Urgent: Date for Wikimedia Asia meeting

Hi! Thanks for expressing interest in attending a Wikimedia Asia meeting. We are urgently trying to decide whether the meeting should be held at 17:30 on Friday, 9 August, or Saturday, 10 August. Please indicate whether you are free on one or both of that dates in the on this page (scroll down if necessary) by 12:00 noon (Hong Kong time) on Friday, 9 August. This will help us decide which date suits the largest number of people. Check [1] to find out the confirmed date. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania

It was good to have a long talk just now as you were top of the list of Wikipedians that I had hoped to meet at Wikimania. Hope to see you again... Andrew Davidson (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I feel both humble and privileged. Hope to catch up with you again soon. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I saw you got the first seat on the first coach away from the beach party - smart work. It reminds me of an article I did on sweatworking. The main benefit of that is "the shared experience of suffering was effective in establishing a bond"! :) Andrew Davidson (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is Crisco. Sorry I didn't say goodbye earlier, but I had to get moving ASAP. At airport now, when I get back to Indonesia I'll try and get a list of editors from various ASEAN nations who may be interested in what we discussed.218.188.81.226 (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and rest assured

Hi Kudpung,

I just wanted to thank you for granting me reviewer rights and provide you with an assurance that I too am here to build Wikipedia, not delete it. If you take a look at my public log, you'll see I regularly mark new pages as reviewed. I'm also working on an article in my user namespace at the moment. Kind regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 09:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of social networking websites

I've amended the editnotice. What do you think? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Question is, will it work? I have recently gotten into the habit of placing reminder templates on the page because slow archiving means that people just don't look at the pagetop notices. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania Hong Kong

Good to meet you. Hope your (considerably shorter) journey home was pleasant and that we keep in touch. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Good to meet you too, Jon. Catch up with you again at the very latest in London next year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User Talk Archiving

Hello, as per your objection here, i have started archiving my talk.Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an objection. It was really an observation and some advice, but it's important if you are going to do work that will invite comments on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

IP user 46.171.197.14

Greetings Kudpung. I am concerned with the edits made by IP user 46.171.197.14 The individual has most lately been active on article Thermonuclear weapon. His or her edit history appears to have an unpleasant focus on personalities from history whom the IP identifies as Jewish. The edits made appear to be problematic in their intent. I have approached you because you are a well-respected admin, and may know the best approach to adopt. I sense trouble with this IP if he/she continues with this problematic choice of topic and editing style. Cheers Irondome (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Having reviewed the article histories and the user's editing history, I share your concerns. In a purely technical article, the religious and/or ethnic relations of the scientists are irrelevant unless it is proven that such developments were clearly and specifically carried out by or on behalf of such a group and are essential to the article's content. The fact that three of the developers shared a common belief or ethnic origin is no more coincidental than if they had been, for example, French or Buddhists. If the insertion persists, I would recommend starting a discussion on the article talk page (which has seen no movement for a long time) and if that does not help, requesting semi protection of the article. As it's a static IP it's highly likely that all edits from that address are from the same individual but I would hesitate before expressing any concerns on its talk page, while nevertheless keeping a watchful eye in case a clearly identifiable POV can be established. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful response. I already have the page under watch, and I notice another colleague has voiced our shared concerns on the users talk. I hesitate to directly confront this however, apart from making regular editorial amendements. I fear my self-control and manners would collapse under the strain of interacting with a possible racist with a POV. I have no wish to be banned. I have many plans here to help out. So I will leave it for the moment to fellow regular editors whose common decency and clue I have the deepest confidence in. Thanks and cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User:46.171.197.14 just added a long rambling antisemitic screed on Talk:Thermonuclear weapon in which he agreed to stop pushing his POV on that page for fear of being banned. However I wouldn't be surprised if he continues inserting antisemitic comments on other pages; his POV is pretty clear. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any admin action is necessary just yet. In cases of inappropriate addition of content to articles or off-topic comments on discussions all users are entitled to revert and/or make use of the catalogue of incremental cautions and warnings, a list of which can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, or in the Twinkle dropdown menu if they are using it. In highly contentious issues, such as those pertaining to race, religion, or politics, if problems persist that require blocking the best course of action would be to file a case at the Administrator's Incidents Noticeboard. However, if a particular article is subject to disruption by IP users, it may sometimes be appropriate and much quicker to request semi page protection where no discussion is necessary; the use of Pending Changes is also an option but the complexity of the issues may escape the knowledge of the reviewers, while under semi PP, any edit requests must be authorised by an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand and agree. Thanks for your advice and guidance. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in the loop. It was as I suspected. Cheers Irondome (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

Hi Kudpung-- I hope you enjoyed yourself at Wikimania this year. I have not yet gone to one, but I did just check out some of Jimbo's "State of the Wiki" addresses from the past few years over the last few days. I might find myself over in London for next year.

I wanted to follow-up on an offer you made some months ago for an assessment here in your second comment. I am considering a run for adminship sometime in the next year now that I am finished with school and can focus more on my work here. I check my e-mail regularly, so you do not need to leave an e-mail notice on my talk page. Also, there's no hurry on this request, but please let me know if you are still able to do so. With thanks, I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Offer still stands. Ping me again when you get nearer to wanting to run because I'm beginning to get a bit forgetful - especially due to the workload I came home to from Wikimania ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion?

Hi Kudpong. I got your name from the list of available trainers at Wikipedia:NPRSCHOOL. I was wondering if you could offer me and User:Forward Unto Dawn your opinion regarding our disagreement at FUD's talk page? [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay in replying - somehow I missed this message. I think the best solution would be to ask for a WP:3O. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Georgia (country) to Georgia move suggestion

Please comment here. Thanks. georgianJORJADZE 00:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC Ping

Not to be a pest, but I'm quite curious as to when you will move forward with your RfC. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Which one? I have a couple on the boil. If you mean the admin recall one, I really don't know. There are a couple of factors, notwithstanding the fact that I'm extremely busy in RL and wouldn't have the time right now to follow it through if I were to launch it. A good success formula with RfCs of this nature is to strike while the iron's hot - at this very moment it isn't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the Bureaucrat/Admin Review RfC. I guess it is best to wait until the right time. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Best to wait until a new discussion about it starts up somewhere again like at WT:RfA for example. For the time being, it's best to leave sleeping dogs lie - it won't go away though. It's interesting to see however, that the arbs have very recently desysoped someone. Maybe they're realising it's time to take a harder line; we'll see. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's even more interesting to note that there hasn't been the slightest comment from the community on that one - tacit agreement? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for RfA

Hi Kudpung. Can I nominate Callanecc for RfA? I believe that he can be an administrator. He has over 19000 edits, with 5900+ mainspace edits. He too has account creator, file mover, reviewer and rollback rights in Wikipedia and is a CVUA instructor. I believe that he know all the Wikipedia policies and won't abuse his admin rights. He do not have any warnings of any kind 3 months before RfA. Jianhui67 Talk 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't usually nominate people without discussing it with them in depth first and usually over email. I think you'll find that Callanecc is already contemplating such a move and has asked some people for advice. You may wish to visit the very current discussion on WT:RfA about nominations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have actually asked him but he rejected my offer and said that he is not up to that at this time. But he said that if he gets nominated for RfA, he hopes that I will support him. Jianhui67 Talk 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's meant as an invitation to go ahead and nominate him. It's not something we do. RfA is a sensitive issue and it would not be good to land someone in an embarrassing situation that they do not feel ready for and which may cloud another future attempt at RfA. You may wish to visit the very current discussion on WT:RfA about nominations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see that Callanecc is rather busy, from my CVUA course that I have to nudge him several times to ask him to mark my work. I don't think that he will be prepared for RfA. He has intermittent and indefinite online times, and his status in his user page showed 'Might be online'. I'll discuss with him in depth whether I can nominate him in RfA in the next few days on email. If he don't want the nomination, I'll wait till another time then. Jianhui67 Talk 15:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I really wouldn't persist with it at the moment, I think his intentions are clear. In fact I'm one of the people he's been in contact with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Has he asked you any advice about RfA? Jianhui67 Talk 15:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I said: I'm one of the people he's been in contact with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

New untitled section

What is the problem with the changes to the Nick Turse page? All have relevant citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.88.211 (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem with the changes to the Nick Turse page? All have relevant citations.128.122.88.211 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. Please also see WP:TP#Talk page use. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Kudpung. I appreciate it. I've found in this case it's frequently better to let the user go without response, or have them blocked as a sock of a banned user. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(That's User:Mbz1, in case you were wondering. ) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering, but as I don't know of any proof (except of a range block) I have not blocked the IP yet. However, comments from this IP are now getting out of hand (Wikipedia talk:Banning policy) if they are indeed block evasion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the autoreview right

Thanks again, Kudpung. :) --Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

CVUA

Can I apply for CVUA to get experience to become a reviewer of rollback?KinHikhari (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think probably until you understand what user rights are for, an adoption programme would be of more help to you. See WP:Adopt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please ask one of the instructors listed on the trainers list on WP:CVUA via their talk page. I would suggest you some trainers that you might want to choose for your CVUA course.

• Callanecc
• Mediran
• ItsZippy

Those instructors I mentioned are quite good. But I'm not sure where you live, so it is essential to pick an instructor that has the same timezone as you. But I still think that like Kudpung said, that you understand what user rights are for before applying with one of the trainers. The CVUA course is relatively long. Mine lasted for 3 weeks. Jianhui67 Talk 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've not been involved at CVUA for about a year now, sorry. And I would echo Kudpung's advice that adoption would be more beneficial than the CVUA - a more balanced and rounded programme would better help KinHikhari learn about Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ooh didn't know that you have not been involved in CVUA for a year. But I think that you are quite a good instructor. Jianhui67 Talk 15:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

New to creating Articles... I think I figured it out now though.

Hello,

You recently deleted the page Lee Merry since it was very poorly cited. I have now fixed those and want to see if I can get the page posted. Please let me know what I would need to do to make that happen. How can I vet the page before it goes live?

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresweet (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you have recreated the page again and added some references. However, the page has already been WP:PRODed for deletion in 7 days if it does not meet our criteria. This is because the references supplied do not relate directly to the subject of the article. Please note that notability cannot be inherited - that means the subject cannot be notable from their connection to other notable people. Referenced sources must be reliable, but above all, must all discuss the subject in depth which these refs do not. You would need to find substantial reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's significance and importance for an encyclopedia entry. For more information regarding the criteria for people please see WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. For a more detailed description of reliable sources please see WP:RS. As it stands, I do not think the article would even survive a discussion at WP:Articles for deletion and that's probably where it will be sent if the PROD template is removed. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:LogX

Hello, Kudpung. I ee you have granted reviewer rights to LogX. I have developed some concerns over his tagging for CSD and was wondering if you had any insight to offer. I have left a note on his talk expressing my concern, but I'm not good at this sort of thing. Any help you might provide would be appreciated. Thanks Dlohcierekim 23:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim. Reviewer rights have the lowest entry threshold of all the minor rights - indeed, a couple of years ago it was handed out indiscriminately to to thousands of users based solely on their edit count. Paradoxically, NPP although IMO far more important, does not need any demonstration of prior experience. I've left my standard custom message for new NPPers on LogX's talk page. If you come across other problematic patrollers, you may like to use it too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dlohcierekim 00:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

didja

get my emails? did i send to right email address? sats 07:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

G'day! Yes I just did. Wikipedia email comes into another computer on another server and I've been busy preparing something (see above). take care, and I hope to catch up with you again soon. The food in HK was good - shame there wasn't enough of it! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo at CVUA

I was looking at the list of instructors at CVUA, and I saw Artic Kangaroo on there. Perhaps he should be removed? Thanks, theonesean 22:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out . I have removed the name but couldn't figure out how to remove the rest of the details from the table. Perhaps you could do that and while you are about it, You may wish to check out the standing and/or activity of the others on the list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks. theonesean 02:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through and checked user activity. Here's what I found. I'm not linking to the reviewers so as not to cause an undue disruption, you can ping them if you want.

• The following instructors are active and in good standing:

List

Callanecc Chip123456 Dipankan001 Hahc21 Mdann52 Riley Huntley Ross Hill Strike Eagle Thine Antique Pen Vertium Vibhijain Yunshui Shaun9876 Mediran Cncmaster Pratyya Ghosh Simeondahl The following instructors are inactive and have been marked as such (but not removed): Floating Boat Jethro B W.D. The following instructors have been blocked and their information has been removed: Arctic Kangaroo The following students are active and in good standing: Hawkmist Numbermaniac Jianhui67 Solarra Citrusbowler Afisch99 Technical 13 Vishal14k Rtucker913 Geraldshields11 Chris troutman Greengreengreenred The following students are inactive and have been marked as such (but not removed): Suri 100 (no longer an account) NitRav Lee Tru. Nyswimmer (no longer an account) Darth Molo The following students have been blocked temporarily and have been marked as such: WorldTraveller101

All users who have either been marked inactive or removed have been notified on their talk page. I created a template (User:Theonesean/CVUA_inactive) for notification. I'll leave it up to someone with more experience to decide when to move the inactive reviewers to the inactive section. The raw list I used for tracking the accounts is available here: [3]. Also, I didn't audit former students. If you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask. theonesean 04:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have actually graduated from CVUA. Jianhui67 Talk 06:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You were still listed as a student in the table. Want me to move you to the graduate section, or do you want to? Cheers, theonesean 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Good work TheonesianTheonesean. If you feel up to it, I see no reason why you shouldn't move the inactive trainers to the inactive list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks, theonesean 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ross Hill, as my trainer, has actually seem to have gone missing. Kudpung, do you have a replacement trainer you might suggest to complete the course? Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ross Hill was still editing up to 2 days ago. Perhaps you should give him a ping. Otherwise, as I redesigned the CVUA some time ago to be self regulating, I suggest if that fails you ask someone else of your choice from the active trainers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• theonesean, just shift me to the graduate section. Thanks. Jianhui67 Talk 23:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Both of those things should be done by tomorrow. Thanks. theonesean 00:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:KinHikhari

Regarding your response on WP:RFP/R, he has actually asked me how many reverts to get rollback on my talk page. I told him it depends on him. Jianhui67 Talk 06:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I'm really sorry for my behavior first of all! I felt that the articles doesn't have sufficient references and subjects should be deleted so I marked them for deletion. I'll be more careful on that in future. Thanks a lot for your guidance and assistance. Sorry again! -- L o g X 13:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No apology needed :) I was just pointing you towards the guidelines and recommended instructions for patrolling new pages. If you read those first before you patrol any pages, you should be fine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure I will! -- L o g X 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete User page

Can you please delete my user page alone? -- L o g X 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I could, because you have requested it uncontentiously, but why not first consider just blanking it and starting over? There's not much in it and I don't see anything egregious, or did I miss something? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In it's history, I have added some personal stuffs there. Like my name and i'm from. That's why I need to cut it up! -- L o g X 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks much :-) -- L o g X

(talk page stalker) LogX, you might also want to request those entries OS'd. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the information-- L o g X 16:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Template for new articles

Hi Kudpung.. I found during NPP that many new users are using a template which starts with "Subject of my article is" to create articles. I am unable to find out the name of the template, but hope that you must be knowing. It seems that this particular template is not clear enough, as although it is written to replace "Subject of my article" with the actual subject of article. Many users are not doing that and instead they leave the text "Subject of my article is" in the articles. A recent example is Erick Arc Elliott. Can you do something about it?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It comes from using the article creation Wizard and it's quite common - just as they also leave the image placeholders on the page. People often omit to remove the instructions in the page code. I don't think the template should be removed from the process, but you may wish to ask for more opinion about its use and possible improvement at WT:AFC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will raise it at WT:AFC. In the past two days I have seen this on 5-6 pages. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung

I wanted to thank you for following up the talk we had at Wikimania and for alerting me about the rfc. I am impressed by the depth of research you have put into the rfc. I hope we can keep in touch. Cheers BO | Talk 15:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there's a lot of good that can come out of this, but many of the posters on the RfC need to take things a bit more slowly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be emailing you (because it's long, rather than avoiding transparency) in the next couple of days to outline something I think you can help us with and which you might enjoy doing. It hinges on the discussions we had with Brandon, Eric Möller, and Steven Walling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for Rollback Rights

Hello! Being encouraged from your comments stated on my last request for rollback rights, I've done lots more reverting and has been doing more reverting focusing on vandalism as stated on your comment/observation. I have a good grasp of what is vandalism, have read policies on vandalism, about rollback, looked & reverted clear cases of vandalism, content removal and many more as stated on my previous request. EuroCarGT 00:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

My previous request: [previous request]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask for user rights but on Wikipedia:Rollback#Requesting_rollback it says you could ask any admin.

Your recent reverts are all legitimate but are not all for vandalism. I notice also that some clear cases of vandalism have been reverted as 'good faith edits'. Nevertheless, I've granted you the use of this tool, but please remember that Rollback must only be used for clear cases of vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Howdy!

Thanks a lot for your kind message on my talk page. I'm currently sorting through orphaned WikiProject:Med articles and I've seen some which I don't believe meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Am I correct if I then mark them with {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} tag to the page? I realise I initially tagged about ten articles with PROD without providing reasons, which I've since done. I since reverted and added a reason to 3-4 PRODs which were removed because I didn't provide a reason, but in the future I will use the {{Prod-2}} tag. Is this the customary way to behave? Kind Regards + thanks again for your gently-worded message, LT90001 (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you use Twinkle because it does most of the work automatically for you including notifying the creator - but that may not have much sense if the creator is a n SPA and is long gone away. You must provide a reason, and that reason should cite the appropriate notability policy or guideline which the article does not conform to, such as for example: Does not demonstrate significance or importance and further research fails to reveal sources to support WP:GNG. I know that sounds a lot, but that's the way it's supposed to be done, especially per WP:BEFORE, although I know we all hate to do the work of lazy creators. That said, do read WP:DELETION, WP:PROD, WP:CSD, and WP:NPP - you'll find most of your answers there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

User "Mike willaims" circumventing his block using sockpuppets and IPs

Hi Kudpung! I would like to make you aware (if you aren't already ;-) of the fact, that user:Mike willaims (Saikat Nick Barua), who has been blocked by you recently, is circumventing his block by creating several sockpuppets and continuing to edit as before under a number of (semi-static?) IP addresses. One of the socks has been blocked already, but the other sock and the IPs are not, nor is any of the articles affected still semi-protected. This user's editing behaviour has not changed over the course of months, and basically he's spamming us since 2011 now. I have summarized the accounts and IPs I have isolated as clearly belonging to this same editor as well as a list of articles affected in this edit. If you find the time, please investigate the case. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm already aware of it. See my comment on the Willaims talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance in making this CfD more public without canvassing.

Hey Kudpung, I was wondering if you could help me spread " WP:CfD/2013 August 28 - Category:Wikipedians by gender and subcats is something everyone should read. The decision to participate is all yours and I don't care one way or the other if you do or don't and if you do I don't care if you support or opposed. I'm only posting this here so that you will be aware and take any action you deem appropriate. Thank you. " to an evenly split group of possible keeps and delete !votes. I think it is something that most everyone should be aware of, whether or not they participate, and I don't want to be accused of canvassing. I've already posted it on WP:VPT and WP:VPM Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#A proposed tool for reducing backlogs

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#A proposed tool for reducing backlogs. APerson (talk!) 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

TY

Thanks for deleting Herpetic gingivostomatitis prior to the move, much appreciated, Lesion (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested at Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Photo

Would you please weigh in to the discussion at Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Photo? Thoughts on an appropriate venue for discussion would be awesome, as would your opinion on the photo itself. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Already seen and done ;) That said, my own thoughts on the horrific photo itself would be irrelevant as I do not work at Commons where any discussion pertaining to its eventual deletion would take place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Sorry, I didnt want to burden you, but when I think WP prob resolutions, I increasingly think of you. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue of semi-protecting the article has come up also. It has been swamped with IP stuff, much of it unsourced POV OR nonsense. There is a danger that regular contributors may be inadvertently hit by 3RR in their frustration. I started a topic and 3 eds including me, support. Could you? If you agree with the above points only of course. Irondome (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've done what I can in an attempt to defuse without throwing my block or protection tools around. The advice to everyone is there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 Ghouta attacks

Can you please vouch for semi-protection on this page, the sheer number of ips vandalizing and pov pushing is astonishing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2013_Ghouta_attacks_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Cprotect.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29

Sopher99 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the problem, but as I've intervened already (see the thread above), I think the best step would be to ask for page protection at WP:RPP and let an uninvolved admin do what's necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

semi?

Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors Semi protection is excessive for a page that has had like only three or four non autoconfirmed edits this year. NE Ent 02:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's only for a month and bearing in mind the sensitive nature of the page, the semi should provide an additional didactic message. If you have admin tools and would like to change it I won't argue, but as far as I'm concerned, I think it's appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability of softwares?

Hi Kudpung, what are the notability criteria for softwares? I came across WP:NSOFT, but that is an essay. Specifically can you examine this new article Hi slider. The subject is a new software released only 8-9 days back and it appears that article is solely created for promotional purposes (the original creator username gives obvious hint of COI).--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

=NSOFT is an essay but it's fairly accurate - perhaps it should be promoted to Guideline', you may wish to read it again to see if you have't missed anything. We can't CSD the article because no CSD criteria covers products. I don't quite see how there is a COI, perhaps you can explain that for me. The article is not overly promotional (even if that is what the author is trying to do), but fails sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. I would suggest looking for sources, and if you don't find any, PROD it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Username is Hswikiac => HS+Wiki+AC => Hi slider+ Wiki + account. So it appears that this account is made only to write about the software i.e. to promote it. Yes, the tone is not promotional, that why I didn't tag it for that. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 11:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Reversal Request

Hi Kudpung, I am kindly requesting the reversal of your decision to delete the Kyle McMahon page (& 2 associated re-directs). To give you some background, myself and a few other fans had come together and gone to the Wikipedia Live Help chatroom and spoke with editors in there to make sure he met the requirements for Wikipedia. They all agreed he did. From there, we split our work up amongst ourselves and did a ton of research. Then everyone did their section and sent it to me, who then used my sandbox to test. I had the Wikipedia Live Help chat editors review and made their suggested changes before publishing. Once they approved, we published it and then the page was approved for publishing. Then, someone from Delaware, Kyle (& myself) homestate, tagged it for deletion. We don't know if this was personal, or what, but it was very frustrating as we came to the live editors first to even see if we should do all that work first. Then, it was put up for debate, so I told the other people that worked on it to come give their opinions too. Then someone said there was an influx of "new" / single purpose accounts, and I told them that was because of me telling the other contributors to join ( I didn't know that was frowned upon :( ) But I also didn't want anyone to think I was trying to cheat the system. In any event, we worked very hard. The bottom line for us, is that we believe someone with a major record label deal, with a worldwide release, who's worked with people like Madonna,did the US Open thing, has been on Oprah 4 times recently, a spokesperson for the Paternity Court TV show, and is a national public speaker on fatherless sons, is notable enough to be included in the wiki. I know you're doing your best to make sure there aren't spammers and solicitors and marketing people. We are not those people. We are just a group of people who support this remarkable kid in his career, and with multiple references in other people's wiki's, figured he deserved one of his own. Thanks for your time & sorry for the long winded-ness (typed-ness? lol)FeerTheDeer (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edited to add: We also neglected to see that there is an IMDB page on him, which none of us seemed to have caught when writing our sections. Obviously we would add that to the page as well, as it wasn't on there anywhere before. He's also since the wikipedia page was created, signed on with Paternity Court (a national tv show debuting in the fall) as a spokesperson. FeerTheDeer (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The decision was not mine. I only assessed the community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle McMahon and carried out the required action which needs access to administrators' deletion tools, so I can't unilaterally undo something that was decided by those who voted. The standard course of action now is to repost your case at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Leroy

Hi, you deleted my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leroy_(software)

This is a legitimate piece of software and everything I put on the page was factual. I wanted to include this in wikipedia along with all the other release automation software that is also there. What was wrong with what I posted ?