User talk:Kudpung

Please sign your message.

Archives

)

Query about Page Deletion

Hi Kudpung,

I am new to Wikipedia, recently I created a page named Khurshid Ali Khan (Singer), he is a renowned Indian Singer from Ghazal Genre. By i can't understand why i am getting notice for deletion of the page, can you please tell me in layman language :)

Salmanalikhan17 (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. There is a discussion starting soon at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khurshid Ali Khan (Singer). It's because there are no sources supporting the content of the article. Three places you need to look at for more advice are: WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE - I know those links don't mean much to you yet, but when you click on them and read the pages, you'll soon get the hang of it. To see a typical biography with plenty of footnotes and references, see Charles Skepper. Don't hesitate to ask me for any further adbice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your kind reply, can you please check my article again and tell me if it has sufficient references ??? and please do check weather my article is violating any rule? Salmanalikhan17 (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't actually 'violate' any rules, but it does not comply with the requirement that everything that is said in Wikipedia about a living person must be proven to be true. We do that by adding links to very reliable, independent sources. If there aren't any such sources available, the person might well be notable but we can't have an article about them in Wikipedia. You must now really click those links I gave you and read up about it. That's the only way to do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok Thanks!!! Salmanalikhan17 (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

One more question, if you don't mind. I think the article has enough references from reliable sources so when will the notice be removed? or I have to removed it myself?? Salmanalikhan17 (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The notice must nt be removed until the discussion has ended at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khurshid Ali Khan (Singer). Discussions tae 7 days or longer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Fluffernutter's page

Just undid & reported some trolling. Think it could be related to the user you previously redacted the comments of from it? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Just been indeffed. Quick work! Cheers anyway _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about school article

Hello, I stumbled upon your name and see that you are an "expert" on articles about schools. I asked another editor for help several days ago with St. Paul's School, but never heard back from him. I assume he's either very busy or just not interested. Anyway, I let him know that I've sought help from someone very knowledgeable about these types of articles. Can you please take a look at the entire St. Paul's School article? Lootbrewed (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On August 20, an editor named Fred_Bauder created a section called "Socialization". All the content in the section was contributed by that one editor and is derived completely from one book written by an alumnus of the school named Shamus Khan. When I first saw and read the section, it struck me as quite inappropriate to devote an entire section to the opinions of one man written in one book, regardless of whether he attended the school or not. Also very concerning is the fact that some of the content is even written in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps it's relevant to note that the editor and I were having a discussion on the article's talk page about an unrelated matter, and I made the comment to him that "my only concern is assuring that only reliably-sourced, encylopedic content is included" in the article. His response surprised me and seems to explain his motivation for adding the socialization content (which he had already done over a week earlier). He said, "My interest is more sociological than anything else; I read Shamus Khan's book Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School. According to Khan boys on scholarship, like Owen Labrie, sometimes don't fit in because they try too hard rather than having, or acquiring, the ease associated with successful socialization at St. Paul's. Seems to be true in his case." (As you may know from news recently, Owen Labrie is the recent St. Paul's graduate who was just convicted on rape charges.) Lootbrewed (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

After having reviewed the socialization content, I decided to read the entire article to see if there's any other content that perhaps is inappropriate. In my opinion, what I found was an enormous amount of other existing content that doesn't belong, and sounds like it was written either by St. Paul's students/alumni or the school's public relations people. And a lot of it, by the way, is also unsourced. There's a large amount of what appears to me to be clearly non-encylopedic information about routine activities, programs, and facilities, which seems to essentially be original research. For example, there's an entire lengthy section detailing each and every dormitory, and another detailed section devoted solely to the "Advanced Studies Program", which I feel should be limited to just a sentence and included in an "Academics" or similar section (which doesn't exist). I think you'll see exactly what I'm talking about regarding all the non-encylopedic content if you look at these sections: "Dormitories", "Daily life", "Religion", "Traditions", and "Advanced Studies Program". As you can see, this would be a require a significant cleanup since it involves a high percentage of the article's total content. I don't know if my hunch about all this is correct, or if I'm way off base, so I didn't remove any of the content. This is why I'm hoping you could determine which content is fine and which should be removed. Thanks so much for your time. Lootbrewed (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am the a coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. As soon as I can figure out who is posting what here, I'll address the issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. All of the above is from me. I didn't want to have one, very long paragraph. I didn't know I was supposed to sign each paragraph; I've never seen that done before by people who post multiple paragraphs. Anyways, thanks again for your help on this! Lootbrewed (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You don't need to sign every paragraph but I'm still curious to know which part of it was posted by Fred Bauder or am I missing something? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I changed the spacing so this discussion would show up in my contributions. I added nothing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean which part of "it" was posted by Fred Bauder? I posted all the above comments on your talk page. And as I indicated above, all of the Socialization section in the article was posted by Fred Bauder, and he started the section on August 20.[1] But my concern isn't about who contributed the content, but rather if the content is appropriate. And all the other sections I alluded to were written by numerous editors over the years. I am just asking for you to read the whole article and determine what belongs in an encylopedia article and what doesn't. By the way, you don't need to leave messages on my talk page; I'm following this page. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lootbrewed. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant which parts of the big message above were posted by you and which parts were posted by Fred Bauder - why do you think Bauder has been editing my talk page?. I'm quite happy to look into this and even get the help of our WPSCH members because it's more than just determining what belongs in an encylopedia article and what doesn't - I've read the article and I certainly have my own interpretation that some of it might be less appropriate, plus we have the WP:WPSCH/AG, but it's likely to end up as a content dispute - something that I would prefer not to make a unilateral judgement over so I'm pinging CT Cooper too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said Bauder was editing your page. I said that Bauder created the "Socialiation" section in the St. Paul's School article that I'm writing about. As I said above, "I posted all the above comments on your talk page", so all of the "big message" was written by me. I even signed all the paragraphs above because I thought you wanted me to sign each paragraph I wrote. But, wait a minute, I just looked at the diff you included and I had no idea that Bauder had been here and made that one edit. It looks like he removed a space from my comment for some reason. I'm perplexed about why he did that, but if you look at the revision history of your talk page, you can see all the comments in this thread are from me. So, putting aside that covert mystery edit from Bauder haha... I simply want you (and any others you choose) to look at the St. Paul's School article and see what doesn't belong. Many school articles that aren't viewed much contain a lot of "junk" that doesn't belong because students or adults associated with the school add information that they don't realize isn't important enough to be in an encylopedia, but I've never seen a school article that has such a large amount of what I believe is non-encylopedic content. So whatever you and CT Cooper decide is fine; you guys are the experts on this. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a lot worse than the St Paul article; I've been a co-ord on the schools project for nearly 8 years and I have almost every school page on my 20,000 article watchlist and we also have a special bot that informs us of moves, PRODS CSD, AfD, etc. to them in case we missed them. However, I will stress that addressing the issues that you have quite correctly identified in St Paul might not be so easy to resolve as you might have anticipated - even with our expertise at WP:WPSCH. I'm also pinging Tedder. {{Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There are many issues with the article; not a surprise considering the nature of the student body at St. Paul's. There is a long editing history, which includes a great deal of material that students have added from time to time, most of which has been removed. The dormitories section is a good example of the sort of dubious material that remains; not necessarily wrong, but kind of fine-grained and irrelevant. Khan's book has interesting material about dormitories, for example, when he was a student the school deliberately put all non-white students in one dormitory, not to segregate them, but to create an easier environment. When he went back there to do research, that was gone, but then legacy students, who sometimes are not too popular with other students, had self segregated into their own dormitory. Probably too subtle to include in the article, but interesting. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(moving left) I've seen worse too. Here's my feedback from reviewing [this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Paul%27s_School_(New_Hampshire)&oldid=679282915]:

• There's an EL in the history section, which is generally not appropriate
• I'm okay with everything else, generally speaking, through the bottom of the "dormitories" section. In other words, it seems encyclopedic and appropriate.
• The school days/hours are only unique because of school on Saturday. The exact hours/schedules are inappropriate otherwise. In fact, the only things that are relevant in that section are 'Saturday' and 'Harkness method'.
• "Socialization"? Um. I'm mildly biased against including any of it, mostly because what is described is fairly standard upper-class Western culture. If St. Paul's was replaced with Yale it would ring true.
• I don't see anything in Traditions that is worthy of keeping.
• The 'controversies' are generally fine. Well-sourced. I'd suggest integrating them into the History (see WP:CRIT, though I'm not all-in on that).
• Athletics is fine. It's actually a model of the appropriate level of information.
• Advanced Studies is .. almost completely unencyclopedic. If well-sourced, the approximate size and admission rate could be kept, but that doesn't warrant a full section.

Feel free to edit this for formatting and context and paste it into the school's talk page if you like. I don't want to be involved any more directly, but I thought it was worthwhile to give my feedback. tedder (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

• Special report: Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Flow placed on ice

• Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments

• Featured content: Brawny

• In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage

• Traffic report: You didn't miss much

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen banning himself from ANI

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Encyclopedia_Lu&oldid=679400700

--112.79.35.21 (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: CVUA

Hey, Kudpung! Thanks for the note. Yes, I'm a bit struggling to stay active and may not take trainees at the moment. You can see the reasons here, I would also appreciate your opinion on that thread if you feel that I'm eligible to get a scholarship and deserves an endorsement from you! Cheers! Jim Carter 12:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the message you left; on the advice of Voceditenore, I left off the matter but as you noted, the "discussion" continued. I have chosen not to respond to what clearly was "baiting", therefore you will not hear anything more from me concerning this matter.

Thank you for your understanding and assistance. Warm regards,Parenchyma18 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Parenchyma18, you have shown admirable restraint in not responding to the editor's latest message on your talk page after you expressly requested her not to continue posting there unless it was about content edits. The editor's behaviour is indeed baiting and has started to verge on harassment. I have archived all of her discussions on my own talk page to discourage any further attempts there. I was also concerned about the comments she made there about her relationship with Bazinet. Frankly, they came very close to a violation of our policy on biographies of living persons, which applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just their article. If you'd like, I can help you archive your talk page as well. Alternatively, you can simply delete without comment any inappropriate messages she posts in future as well as her latest one. I also suggest you paste {{NOINDEX}} on the top of both your talk page and your user page. It doesn't show on the actual pages, but keeps them out of Google and most other external search engines. I put it on all the pages in my user space. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore, I think I would like to apply that option ((NOINDEX)). How do I go about doing that? Your advice and assistance is much appreciated, thanks ever so much! Parenchyma18 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Yes, and I would also think it prudent I archive the discussions on my talk page, as you suggest; not knowing my way around very well, I certainly will need assistance in that regard! Thank you, again, for your kind words and support.Parenchyma18 (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your comments are, in my opinion, absolutely without merit, Voceditenore. If you do not consider the original comments Parenchyma18 made on the Bazinet talk page as "baiting" then I believe you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word. I think Parenchyma18 joined Wikipedia expressly to attempt to destroy my credibility, which doesn't concern me as much as the act itself, which was performed in such a way as to purposely cause me embarrassment and that was unconscionable. No one here knows what I went through with René Bazinet and it's none of anyone's business. For someone to contentiously come up here to deliberately open Pandora's Box and Voceditenore to cite me and not them for their comments regarding Bazinet clearly shows extreme bias, as far as I'm concerned. I wish to go on record as saying that if someone had simply extended me the courtesy of deleting my pictures, of Bazinet, when I politely asked for them to do so none of the following would have occurred... Blythe Spirit (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary Comments

I just want to go on record as saying that I don't appreciate any of your comments on the René Bazinet talk page. If some contentious troll had challenged your credibility, after simply joining Wikipedia to make trouble for you, it would most likely make you as mad as a hatter too. Quite frankly and happily I no longer have -any- affiliation with the fringe dweller artist whose picture of mine adorns his page. My problems began when I tried to get all three of my pictures of him deleted. However, I wasn't extended the courtesy, following a brutal process on Wikimedia, where I was treated in an overall uncivilized manner by several members, there, some of whom didn't even bother reading about the issue and just made unfair assumptions and accusations. It's all on record and if you actually care to take the time to read the entire collection of threads, with an open mind, you'll realize how poorly I was treated. In my opinion Voceditenore was one of the most badly behaved of the bunch, as she began by unkindly challenging the dyslexia condition I suffer from and went on from there to make the ordeal a most unpleasant experience for me. She is far from an innocent by-stander and your comments regarding situations, you are not at all well versed in, are therefore uncalled for and completely unnecessary. Since my picture is still on Bazinet's page and no one will allow me to delete it I've been attempting to at least have the information beneath it read correctly, but to no avail, so I'm simply through trying, which will no doubt come as a relief to Voceditenore... Blythe Spirit (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

School outcomes

Thanks for the notices on my talk page regarding two school AFDs. Thanks also for comments in recent school-related AFDs that suggest REDIRECT and for recent "deprod-and-redirect" edits you made to articles I PRODded. As a result of me seeing your edits, I pretty much stopped sending schools to AFD or PRODding without checking for a reasonable redirect target and started and started redirecting them if possible and only PRODding them only if I didn't see a good target.

For the two articles you mentioned on my talk page, I had specific reasons for going to AFD, which are included in the deletion rationale. In each case, either a previous PROD or change-to-redirect was undone at some time in the past. I sent them to AFD with a preference for some sort of REDIRECT but with the "weight/authority" of an AFD to back it up.

I would welcome a review of my recent PROD- and redirect-related contributions. An incomplete list of PRODs is in User:Davidwr/PROD log. If you find any recent school-related PRODs that have an obvious REDIRECT target that I missed (there are a few where I forgot to check the city/community page for any mention of the PRODded article or a place where such a mention could reasonably be added) please redirect them.

On a related note, I plan on going through the United States elementary-school and middle-school categories over the next few weeks and redirecting or PRODing all articles that, as written, would be a snow-delete if sent to AFD. The most common reasons I've found to not redirect-or-PROD such an article are 1) the school once had high school grades (I'm seeing this a lot in Roman Catholic schools) and 2) schools that have won a major award, like the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program award. Less commonly, I'll give a school a "pass" if 3) it's over a century old or has other hints of being more than locally well-known and I don't have the time to research it (if all of these went to AFD, far more than half would probably wind up being deleted, but far too many would be kept for me to act without researching first). I haven't run across any International Baccalaureate or similarly-well-credentialed pre-high-school schools yet but I probably wouldn't delete them without checking for sources and maybe checking old AFDs of such schools first. User:davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi davidwr. Your criteria for what you do seem solid enough although just having the Internatinal Bac in the programme is nothing outstanding. Being a Blue Ribbon school might add to notabilty but probably not to a very short stub for which no further references can be found. Being over a century old? Well, in he UK thousands of primary schools are over 100 years old - remember that 100 years ago was as recent as 1916 which was only 30 years before I was born. Nearly all our UK and European village schools were in existence by then and there's nothing special about them. When redirecting, always remember to place the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page so that it automatically populates the category.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be mainly doing US schools for now, I have a better idea of what is likely to get WP:SIGCOV than I do for non-US schools. I've already started copying your example (well, someone's recent example) of using {{R from school}}. I'm not saying schools over 100 years old are notable or even likely to be notable - I'm just saying that enough of them are that I am reticent to blindly redirect or PROD them without Google-ing them first, and sometimes I get in a rapid-fire mode and don't bother to Google an article about a seemingly-local-interest-only school that would snow-fail at AFD in its current state. When I'm in that mode, anything that makes me thing "this deserves at least a Google search" will result in me skipping on to the next school if I'm in "rapid-fire" mode. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

mode or mood? ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant "mode" but come to think of it, it's probably both. As in "I'm in the mood to be in that mode." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to WP:ADMIN regarding paid editing

You recently commented on a brainstorm that discussed banning administrators from paid editing. A concrete proposal to amend the administrator policy to this effect has been made at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed change - 'No paid editing" for admins. Your comments would be appreciated. MER-C 08:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

afc replacement

re: this, Can you give me links to the discussion, about consensus for replacing AfC , with AfC 2.0 , or whatever the new thing is going to be called? I think I missed out on the conversation.  :-)   75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You probably did. One of the advantages of having an account are our notification systems and watchlists. As of course you know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've been around the wiki-block before. And yes, the lack of watchlist is one of the main downsides to editing as an anon. One of the few things that might tempt me to create an account someday.  :-)     But at the moment, for philosophical reasons, I'm still trying to remain anon, to widen the bell curve. (Truth be told I find the idea of the notifications-thing annoying though; if I did have a watchlist, it would be one I reviewed manually, when I had made time, rather than something were I would want to get emailed *every* time somebody fiddled with a page I was watchlisting *at* the time they made the change. Digest-mode in other words.) Anyways, can you please point me to the URL, or if you don't happen to have it offhand, give me some search-keyword-hints that will lead me in the right direction? I work the IRC channel sometimes, and about 75% of the people that show up there are AfC-declines who click the chat-with-a-helper button. Thus, I'm curious about what the AfC 2.0 thing will look like, if and when it gets put into place. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know you've been round the Wiki block and I don't believe the new plan is quite ready for sharing yet.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Gasp! WP:TIAC!  ;-)     As you wish, but in that case, you should probably call it 'local consensus' rather than consensus-without-qualification, since the widely-shared-aspect is what makes consensus. If you remember, when AfC 2.0 details are ready for wider sharing, ping my talkpage if you like. Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to say thanks for granting me the rollback rights. I promise you that I'll use it for reverting vandalism. Again, thanks. Ayub407^talk 15:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

GPC

Hi Kudpung, how do we get a new category on Wikipedia for at the bottom of biographies, I'm thinking of one for RAF airmen who were badly burned and had plastic surgery at East Grinstead becoming members of the Guinea Pig Club. I just stumbled across an article on "Jackie Mann" DFM Beirut hostage and realized that although Wiki has an article on the GPC it doesn't have a category to collect the members. Richard Hillary would be another and Geoff Page DSO DFC. Your advice would be appreciated. Thank you R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Read up on categories at WP:CAT. If the number of articles is likely to be low, a nav box may be the best solution, see WP:CLN. Also check out WP:Archive - it's best not to try and add messages to archives because this can mess things up; simply start a new thread on the current page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

NPP/N

Can you clarify what you meant here? VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

PLease accept my appologies, VQuakr. I have created so many pages for NPP and associated projects I thought it was one of them.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly accepted. I had to check the history to see if my memory was right, because you indeed have contributed so much to NPP that I wasn't sure. VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

According to the edit summary here [2] that reads, "Rmv all non-encylopedic content + other cleanup per assessment by WikiProject Schools coordinator", you alone okay-ed the removal of a large amount of content from an article. Could you please explain how such a decision made by one editor is license for another editor to gut an article after discussion at an editor's talk page rather than seeking consensus at the talk page of the article in question? Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, this appears to me to be a grave misunderstanding on how Wikipedia works by the editor. I am going to revert it back to your version and offer a bit of edumacation to the editor. Kudpung, I do hope you will weigh in at the article talk page. I see no consensus, but I do see a potential BLP issue. Full protection might be in order until this is resolved. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I don't think it's a grave misunderstanding at all. I believe it's a power play by that editor because of his disagreements over the article with Fred Bauder. He came to Kudpung's talk page originally because of his "position" as both an administrator and coordinator of WikiProject Schools. As a side note: I'm not sure that Lootbrewed has yet figured out that Fred Bauder is an administrator, as he does not have the admin topicon at his user space. Look at the editing history at the article over the last few days and also note that Lootbrewed was blocked for edit warring at the article a few days ago. Whatever the case, I don't think this was a misunderstanding at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I was being "charitable". Just basically, I wanted you to understand that I saw no wrongdoing in Kudpung's action. That article is a cesspool, despite the other editors assessment above. I've trying my best to avoid it. John from Idegon (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping charitability was what you were offering, rather than not seeing what was really happening. As far as Kudpung's role in this, I think he has been used in this whole thing, actually. He really committed no "action" other than offering an opinion. It was the other editor who took it to the next level. As I stated above in my original post, I wanted an explanation for the edit summary, as the other editor was claiming they were allowed to do what they did because Kudpung said so. Whether he really did "say so" is yet to be seen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Read up the page. He said no such thing. With that, I'm out. For the first time since I've been here, I am going to remove a school not in New Jersey from my watchlist. I just don't have time for the drama, same reason I don't watch schools in NJ. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

John from Idegon, please drop the shield of defense for Kudpung, it's truly not necessary. If you read exactly what I've written so far in this talk section, you would see what I'm actually saying (here's a hint: the word "claiming" is key here). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, please see this discussion on Tedder's talk page for context. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

John, it was actually Tedder who provided the thorough review and feeback I was seeking.[3] Kudpung never got a chance to do that. For the record, had Tedder said all the content in the article is acceptable, I would not have removed any content at all. But his explanations happened to be precisely in line with mine for most of it; that a lot of it simply wasn't important enough for an encylopedia. I thought a few other bits of content weren't necessary either, but I left them in the article since he didn't mention any objections to them. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mistake?

I patrol pages often and the Rollback page (watchlisted as I requested some time ago), might have a teensey tiny mistake you made. So here you said you gave the user the right but the user did not get the right. Whereas the commenting user got the right here when he had withdrawn his request prior. Anyways I took note and just wanted to let you know, I mean no harm Kudpung (: just wanted to let you know! Many Thanks. --CyberWarfare (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up CyberWarfare. I knew something was wrong because some of the requests were out of sync, probably due to another user incorrectly posting their request, and I couldn't figure out what was wrong and couldn't get back to it immediately. I believe I have fixed everything now. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

St. Margaret's Primary School

You may want to watchlist this page. After the histmerge is done I plan on redirecting it to a suitable target. If the guy you mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Anthony's Primary School undoes the redirect, it will go to AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It already is. I have all school articles on my wl and we also have a special bot that tells me of all changes and tags to school articles. That said, If I am absent for a day or two I might not see it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Histmerge complete, I WP:BOLDly redirected it, now let's see if it sticks, if it gets reverted and improved to demonstrate notability (which is of course the best outcome for notable topics), or if it winds up at AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

NPP user right

Maybe the Orangemoody case will be the catalyst needed to add a NPP user permission? Feel free to weigh in here and cross-link any parallel proposals. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A user right was supposed to have been introduced concomitant with the launch of the new Page Curation system 2 years ago but I took a short break and it never got done. It's now already in the pipeline and a draft for the RfC is being finalised and just waiting for some tables and stats to support trhe argument. Note also that we acjieved a consensus to merge AfC to NPP some months ago but also due to a discussion that still has to take place on the addition of the criteria and template comments to the Curation Toolbar it did not get enacted because we are still (yes, still) waiting to find out who is now ultimately responsible for the code and/or maintenance of the suite of curation tools. All the senior staff who were involved in its develpment have all gone in a sudden recent exodus. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Le sigh. Nothing ever happens fast around here, huh? Well, I do think there may be a "momentum" advantage to be had here so now may be the time to implement the RfC. Do you need help with anything? I don't code in any modern language but I am decent with Excel. VQuakr (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've actually been on to it for several weeks even before the news of Orangemoody broke. See User talk:samtar#NPP and follow the links and you'll see what I've got done so far. Scottywong used to do all this for us but he's now retired.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Meetups in Liverpool and Manchester

See you there?

Hi there! Do you know that there will be meetups in Liverpool on the 27th of September and in Manchester on the 25th of October?

We have sent you this message because you signed up at meta:Meetup/Manchester. If you would rather not receive such messages on future, please remove your name from the list.

Yaris678 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:PERM - clerking

User:RMS52 still appears to be clerking at [4]. I just wanted to let you know because it looks like you had warned him not long ago about this issue. --JustBerry (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Change of AP right

The change of AP threshold to 25 has already been implemented by IJBall after no opposition whatsoever to the idea at the policy village pump for over a month. Is there a reason that Wikipedia:Autopatrolled/RfC to change threshold is necessary? If no-one has opposed since the implementation, it seems like process for the sake of process when a highly visible discussion already took place. ~ Rob^Talk 03:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13, The implementation was out of process, such changes call for a proper RfC. The problems with Ball's practically unilateral change to policy is already having a negative effect at PERM. I have already reverted his changes. See User talk:IJBall. In my opinion, we can't just have a tiny handful of editors deciding such issues among themselves without inviting the broader community to comment - particularly where the 'proposer' was neither an admin nor a regular New Page Patroller. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. ~ Rob^Talk 11:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your recent reversion of the change in the article threshold at WP:Autopatrolled. One of us is right here, and I'd like a wider review to determine exactly who that is.. The thread is "Requesting Administrator review". Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinvest Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

hey Kudpung - I'd very much like to understand why this page was put up for deletion, appreciate the time you are taking out for this.

Please let me know how I can avoid speedy deletions as well.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njd0505 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Two admins reached the conclusion that the article was a) not about a notable subject, b) purely promotional. The deletion log reads:

Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Pinvest Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, A7).

What is your connection with this article? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

hey - the article is about a firm I am associated with, we wanted to have a wikipedia link so that if anyone searches for more information, they are directed to this page. I understand now after have gone through G11, A7 that it would seem like self-promotion of a page/person and hence it was put up for speedy deletion.

I would like to know - how do I create a page for a firm that is well known in smaller circles today but has the potential to reach out to a much wider audience. The intention is not to promote but to have an authentic wiki page that tracks how the company started, its root, work etc.

Please let me know if I have understood the concerns correctly and if there is still a way for us to create a wiki page for Pinvest Consulting Pvt. Ltd.? Look forward to hearing from you..

Replied on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Revival Selena Gomez

No, actually, it wasn't intentional: I just didn't check what I had done. イヴァンスクルージ九十八 _{（トーク）} 14:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

confused by the lack of consistency in editing new articles

Hi Kudpung I am confused by the lack of consistency in editing new articles, do editors here just “do their own thing” ? Is there no clear standard ? This time another US based editor has “vigorously” edited my recent article in the “Great Escapers” series regarding “Sandy Gunn”, removing pertinent information, removing a link which another editor had asked me to include in all of this series (pointing to “Stalag Luft III murders” which is the central hub article), removing a link to a free on-line historic newspaper page which has biographical material on this officer and other “Great Escapers”, and directed a link from my article to a wrong person (I have since corrected that). This material had been deemed acceptable in the other 16 articles in the series I've done. I have replaced the link which a previous editor (who has subject knowledge) asked me to include, but nothing else out of respect for the latest editors position here. I very politely asked the US based editor for advice, as you know I’m new here and picking this up as quickly as I can. The editor asked me to put my query on the “talk” section for that page which I did and also let them know I’d done it. Since that time (4 days) they have dealt with other people but ignored my query. I know both yourself and the editors who have offered encouragement, like articles to be well sourced but I am now advised politely (by an editor I respect who does have subject knowledge) to offer only one source per statement. My article (Ted Thorn (RAF officer)) has just had a chunk removed which that editor viewed as irrelevant (it mentioned Thorn’s early life and that his father served in the Great War and died in WW1) – which I consider most relevant to the life of Thorn (a Battle of Britain ace who died in WW2) – although a different editor who reviewed my article concerning William Henry Franklin (also a Battle of Britain ace who died in WW2) was apparently happy with identical information on Franklin’s father who also served in the Great War and died in WW1. I have also been advised that the Audie Murphy article is an excellent example of what is required here – but I see that also makes reference to his early life, the early death of his mother and absent father. After contributing 20 plus new articles in the last 6 weeks, I have stopped adding new articles for the time being as each of these take me 6-10 hours to prepare and add sources and if each is going to be reviewed by a different standard there is little hope of me getting them “right”, whatever right is on any given day. Is there no hope of editorial consistency ? This newbie is confused by the moving goal posts. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Once an article has been created, of course anyone can edit it. I'm sure that anyone editing the articles you created are doing so in good faith although it can sometimes happen that some editors will alter text just because they don't like it and believe their own prose to be better. I only briefly reviewed your articles and I found them to be excellent contributions, but without predjudice to some of our regular copyeditors checking sources for reliability and pertinence and making other minor cleanups. I have asked one or two of the editors to chime in here because the last thing we want to do is to end up discouraging users like yourself from producing valuable new content. Let me know the names of editors who have been ignoring your messages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have now gone through the entire edit histories of all your creations and I find that generally most of the edits by others have been essential copyediting. It would be nice if they would all leave a message for a new user as I do, but such nicities are rare on Wikipedia and those who have been around a while tend to forget that they were once newbies themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice Kudpung, would I be wrong to replace the references to Thorn's father's service and death in the Great War and the standard material (on the Great Escapers series) which was removed on my Gunn article ? I have no problem with Editing - I am a published author - and see it as extremely useful when done knowledgeably and properly. The person who did the edits on Sandy Gunn is the one who is most surprising in having removed useful material and useful links and set an incorrect link and then promised to make contact if I loaded my query on the talk page of that article, but then failed to make contact. Thank you I have had a very useful contact from another editor. R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is wait until other editors chime in here. To be honest I don't have time right now to make an in-depth review and there are others who have the same experience as I do but have made copyediting their main or preferred area of focus.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm in touch with Steelpillow, I appreciate the contact . It must be bedtime there ! R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Steelpillow is one user who goes out of his way to be helpful. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easier to sweet talk folks into improving Wikipedia than to do it all by myself. ;-)

Seriously, I took a quick look at Sandy Gunn and Ted Thorn (RAF officer), and all the changes have been done in good faith (if occasionally mistaken) by responsible editors, for one reason or another. They are nice articles too, so thank you for all your effort. It looks like GenQuest (talk · contribs) is a bit busy at the moment, I'm sure it's just the kind of hiccup that grabs everybody from time to time. I restored one bit for Ted Thorn (RAF officer), but if you want to restore anything else or just want to know why some particular change was made, I'd suggest you bring it up on the article talk page as I explained elsewhere. Hope this helps. Wow, still nearly two hours to bedtime! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)