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 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Imagine a world where all the new page patrollers went on strike -

Please remain seated with your computers on until Wikipedia comes to a complete stop

Re NPP

Yeah I know about attack pages-but which one was patrolled wrong? Wgolf (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wgolf, I can't remember but it doesn't matter now because it's deleted and you can't see it anyway. Attack pages when tagged will light a red alert on admins' control panels. Please also return to Aubrey Wade and tag as appropriate. I will continue random checking your patrols and point out any others that might need a revisit. Please understand that depth and accuracy rather than speed are essential when patrolling. Although we have a very serious backlog, not patrolling at all is better than letting bad articles through, or wrongly tagging for deletion.You may wish to read WP:NPP again because patrolling is a complex process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

Hello -

I am new to Wikipedia and I am creating a page for someone else. I didn't mean to publish the page yet, as I am not finished with it. Is there a way to unpublished it without it getting deleted? I am trying to get the article up to the Wikipedia standards. Any and all help would be much appreciated!

Ivy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivysaur423 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The page has been moved to Draft:MaryLynn Johnson where you can work om it for a limited period without it being deleted. For more information, please take a moment and read all the links on the welcome message I have written on your talk page. Please remember to sign your messages - see the big blue banner down there → --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements.
Message added 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim Carter 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Essential further reading

You added two items on User talk:DGG to the Essential Further Reading at The Future of NPP and AFC. However, they only go to the DGG talk page, not to the sections. I haven't yet checked whether they are misspelled or whether they have been archived. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert, Please try and fix it. I'm getting fed up with being the only person who is actively doing anything. I've spent 36 hours setting up the entire project. now I would like some other concerned users to take some initiative. It should be fairly clear from DGG's talk page which sections are being referred to. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I did find headings in his archives that correspond to the links. Basically, given how methodical his archive is, everything in Archive 0.22 is applicable, and there is a link for the whole archive 0.22, but I did fix the broken links. At this point, AFC is more backlogged than I have ever seen it backlogged before. I know that NPP is also backlogged. By the way, Do not bite the newcomers is, in the abstract, or when it was written, an excellent guideline, but I think that it is related to what is wrong with NPP and AFC. Too many reviewers are petrified of being thought to be bitey with regard to bad-faith new editors, but I am writing a separate essay on that. I am still getting up to speed on the NPP and WMF mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert.

Imagine a world in which all new page reviewers and recent changes patrolers went on strike.

Please remain seated with your computers switched on until Wikipedia comes to a complete stop.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: I've just looked at DGG's talk page. It looks as if he's already archived the major discussions to his selective archives. However, several days ago I had already put a copy of those two long recent DGG discussions on the project at Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/The DGG discussion. Perhaps you or someone could make the link more prominent.mIt's a key discussion and should be read by everyone.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

PPS: At NPP biting newcomers is the least of our worries. It happens of course, but it is actually so rare compared with all the other issues that the collateral damage is well within tolerable parameters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A few reviewers are petrified of the collateral damage, and are part of the problem. The main problem is X and Y and Z. Discussion is in progress as to what X and Y and Z are. Right now the main short-term problem is backlog, and the wrong answers include lowering the standards and less-qualified reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am moving them and all major related discussions to my subject archive User talk:DGG/Archive 0.22, which could be linked as

User DGG AfC and NPP archive. I shall be moving most of the other major discussions also, see in particular User DGG COI and paid editors archive User DGG Notability archive User DGG AfC and NPP archive My user talk had reached a ridiculous length, and Ive been meaning to do this for some time.

After School Learning Tree

Hi, Kudping I was not finished with the article and was too busy so I left it hanging. I will edit it pretty soon.

Thanks, GAMTWMV!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAMTWMV (talk • contribs) 03:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see the BIG BLUE banner at the bottom of this page - I usually do not respond to unsigned messages or to requests where users have not read the instructions for creating articles. It is unlikely that After School Learning Tree will ever be accepted by Wikipedia. It is purely promotional about a non notable for-profit organisation. Wikipedia is not a business listing directory. Sorry. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delete your account

Hi Kudpung. I'd like to ask about your rationale in the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delete your account. It looked to me as though there was not quite a consensus for deletion, and your close didn't explain how you decided. Some of the delete !votes had thin reasoning (that the article was "silly" or "memecruft"). Would you mind explaining a little bit further how you determined that the community decided to delete? Thanks! agtx 15:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The AfD was closed according to WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS (Administrator instructions). When a consensus appears fairly clear to the closer, there is no obligation for a closing rationale. As far as I can see, if one disregards the votes from inexperienced users, the 'delete' votes appear to be made by established users who are well versed in policies and guidelines - the nominator is a member of Arbcom (but that does not mean that Drmies cannot be wrong, and his status does not influence my evaluation of consensus). If you would like a new reading of the consensus you are welcome to apply at WP:DELREV - I have absolutely no objection. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think my inflated status is relevant, haha, but yeah, that looks like a pretty decent close to me. It's all so trivial--this should somehow prove it's of ongoing importance, but there are all just mentions. A meme should be considered notable if reliable sources discuss it--which means talk about it in some depth, at some length. That's not happening here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I understand you don't have to put a rationale on the page, which is why I asked for clarification here. Based on your reasoning (that experienced users supported a deletion), I don't think there's a need for review. I might have voted differently, but that doesn't mean you got the consensus wrong. agtx 22:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

May find this useful?

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

Hi Kudpung, I've made http://tools.wmflabs.org/nppdash/count/ to help track numbers with regards to NPP. The number at the top is the live count of the queue, and the graph below is periodically updated to show trend -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty good Sam. Does it auto-update? It's on the lines of the manual graph I made in Apple Numbers. Perhaps not state 1500 articles left to patrol, because the quantity increases every day due to the constant arrival of new articles. Probabyl best to just call it the backlog. Perhaps not invite people to do some patrolling for the moment until we get the current RfC closed. If you know how to do some data mining (Quarry) we have some more stats that are required. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I've made those changes - the graph currently doesn't auto-update though I'm working on that. The number does. I've been using Quarry for a while - what other stats would be useful? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:41, 3 October 2016 (UT

Samtar I'll let you know tomorrow, it's 3am here and I've actually just come of a very long Skype with someone in NY about the whole NPP debacle. Need some shut-eye. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Page Curation tags

phab:T147224 is now resolved. All the tags that are in Twinkle should now be in Page Curation. I might have missed something or there might be a slight misconfiguration... but everything checked out with my testing. Let me know if you have any problems! I have also taken note of Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements and will see if there's other ones I can easily fix. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you enormously MusikAnimal. I'll check them all out. Looks like we at last have a 'friend' in the WMF! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's looking good. Thanks. These aren't the obly functions that need to be added to the Curation tool, but it's certainly progress.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a little tip: If you go to Preferences > Notifications, check "Failed mention" so that you'll get notified when you unsuccessfully pinged someone. This was a failed mention, for instance. For the notification to be sent, I believe you have to (1) start a new line of text in which you mention the user, and (2) sign the comment in the same edit that you mentioned the user. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Aha! Thank's for the heads up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	There really is no way I can think of to adequately thank you for the incredible amount of work you have done driving NPP forward so have this barnstar with my inadequate thanks. JbhTalk 03:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Jbhunley, for the kind words. It kinda makes my work worth doing after all :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Good morning!

I know you're very busy with other things at the moment (bureaucracy bid looks good to go. Congrats or I'm sorry...not 100% which is more appropriate. You're a glutton for punishment.), but could you take a look at the last two posts on my talk page and advise? Both involve Sherman Oaks Center for Enriched Studies. My guess is the teacher is a sock and I'm being trolled, but I don't want to buy us any bad PR. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. You're being trolled. I've warned both users and protected the page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

SprX small RNA review

Extremely sorry for placing the mis-informative tags!!! The tags do not stand a chance!!! Thanks for your correction!!! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

New quotes on your user page

The new quotes—I like them.

For your consideration:

...the three most important things about real estate are location, location, location.

Substitute promotional articles for real estate and you have the explanation for the explosion of COI articles in Wkipedia.

References

— Neonorange (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chase School.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chase School.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted page - inquiry

Hello,

I was reviewing the outcome of the following deletion discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick_McGuinn , and though I understand the concerns brought up in the discussion, I feel as if the arguments were misled and there is some missing details in the scope of this topic that should be considered.

details

The biggest argument that called for deletion is related to notability and the general notability guidelines. In addition to the Variety article referenced in the discussion, the filmmaker's films have been reviewed in the NYT (See: Genzlinger, Neil. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 23 Oct 2009: C.8.; Genzlinger, Neil. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 22 Nov 2006: E.12.) as well as included in short film collections. The most recent being a collection of award-winning short films which was reviewed in the Library Journal: Johnston, Lisa N. "History Lessons / Queer as F**k: Bizarre Short Films". Library Journal127.13 (Aug 2002): 165. In addition to these sources, his films are collected within UCLA's Film Archive as part of the Outfest LGBT Legacy Project. https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/collections/outfest-ucla-legacy-project-lgbt-moving-image-preservation . And as being a participant of Outfest, his work is also captured within the OneArchives indexed by the Online Archive of California. His films have also been featured at the Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival of Toronto You can find him referenced in the following books: Out in the Dark: Interviews with Gay Horror Filmmakers, Actors, and Authors By Sean Abley The Motion Picture Guide: 1999 Annual (The Films of 1998) by Edmond Grant CINE ARCO-ÍRIS: 100 anos de cinema LGBT nas telas brasileiras by Stevan Lekitsch - 2011 As a final comment for consideration, I think this page needs to be looked through a different lens. The editors who commented do not have a background in film history or LGBT history (according to their profiles). There was also 3 calls for further discussion, and only one additional comment was made after those three calls. For researchers in the field, he is a figure that is referenced and should be kept a part of the common knowledge that Wikipedia represents.

Given these additional details and arguments, I do hope that this page can be reconsidered -- and I hope I am following Wikipedia procedures correctly to get this process going (It's kind of gauntlet of resources to figure out what the exact steps are to proceed with this -- so, apologies if I should have gone a different route).

Thank you! 2605:E000:6195:FF00:40DB:35C8:9FF9:3CA0 (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read all this in detail. If you are saying that the closer should read the article concerned and then actively empathize with LGBT issues, unfortunately that's not the case. We consider the arguments that are put before us in the deletion discussion and do our best to evaluate a rough consensus. I've read my closure again and I can see no r4ason in this particular case to change it. If you want more eyes on the affair, may I suggest you make a case for your opinion at WP:DELREV, but I would encourage you to keep you post as short as possible if you want the editors there to do anything about it, and perhaps consider registering an account. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying so quickly! I will consider those options. 2605:E000:6195:FF00:40DB:35C8:9FF9:3CA0 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Per DRV steps: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_October_8 Pclibuser (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)