User talk:Kudpung: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:38, 17 September 2019

Hi, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to know why your page was deleted, please read THIS first.

Online now? It is 11:34 AM where this user lives near Udon Thani, Thailand

Paid editors, company staff, PR agents

If you are receiving compensation in any form for your edits, or if your article has already been deleted, I will be happy to tell you what you did wrong, but under no circumstances will I use my administrator authority to undelete it, or provide any editing help.

A kitten for you!

for your no nonsense and polite interaction with a newish editor over Zachary Quack Minimonster, thankyou.

Coolabahapple (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

French to English translation of interview .mp3?

Hello. I have found what appears to be an interview with Emily Loizeau by fr:Jet FM downloadable as an .mp3 at http://jetfm.fr/site/Emily-Loizeau-entretien-avec-une.html (text source; won't auto download). I have reason to believe the interview possibly features mentions of her cover of "The Partisan", an article I have been working to improve (with a lot of help from Google translate since I barely speak a word of French), and would love to replace the one crappy reference remaining. The interview is titled (according to Google) "An hour with Emily Loizeau" so I assume it lasts about an hour; the only part(s) I'd be interested in right now would be anything confirming that she recorded/released a cover of the song. I wonder if you'd mind listening through it and letting me know if anything useful can be cited? In case you're wondering; a primary source, i.e. interview, would be better than the current reference I'm trying to replace. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry Fred, but I don't have time to watch an hour long interview, besides which, interviews are not considered RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie. Thanks :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel-Michel de Vassan

Please, can you create this page. More information are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Thank you very much. --80.116.56.68 06:59, 4 September 2019 (CEST)

If you believe the subject has a chance of being retained for Wikipedia, you can create the article yourself as a draft, and submit it to AfC when you are ready. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have time to do it. Please, can you help me? Thank you. --87.4.157.99 06:49, 5 September 2019 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.157.99 (talk)

Well, I'm sorry, but if you don't have time to do it, nor do I. That's not what we're here for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer review

Hello Kudpung. I was granted new page reviewer rights a few weeks ago, and since then I've patrolled about two dozen pages. Would you be willing to look over my page curation log to see whether you disagree with any of my patrols? I was a bit unsure about a few of these pages, so some feedback would be helpful to me. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bolingbroke, I've done a representative number of checks and I don't see any issues. Keep up the good work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for taking a look. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you should know

I'm going back to work. Next week I will restart the EotW Award after a 2 month plus hiatus/strike. I saw and appreciated your favorable comments about Dennis and his WP:ER. Some thing like it may be a partial solution to the "Fuck the Community" mindset. I certainly didn't read all the chatter of the FRAM Controversey but I did notice that I was searching out your comments as a benchmark. Good luck going forward. ―Buster7 ☎ 21:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buster7, I followed the FRAMBAN issue quite closely (and still do) but hold back as much as I can from commenting. I'm more vociferous here (and got some results), but not based on the editor herself but rather on the description and actual function (or lack of it) of the top job. Reminds me a bit of how her Maj had to be badgered by Blair to come to London following Diana's death (nobody normally dares to tell the monarch what to do). The richer these celebs get, the less they appear to be inclined to care about the minions whose unpaid work generates the funds. See also Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff and the comments section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for moving my voting comment to the right location. Eschoryii (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC) All I do for Wiki is edit film articles after I have watched the movie and I really should to more. I read page patrolling and vandalism rules and procedures but always fail to ask permission. I go crazy when a new editor does not understand the rules. Editors try to educate but only speak in what I call Wikispeak. As an example see the new Editor Normspier at the Teahouse. He was a doctor and edited a Medicaid article. He was verbose and added his own knowledge. Newsinger and other community editors tried to explain the Wiki way. I'm sure he did not get it. The man is a doctor and felt an editor should not be able to delete his work unless they could prove their own competence. The same issue repeats itself over and over. Once in a while I try to explain the rules in plain language but who I am to interfere. Oh well I just vented again. Sorry. Eschoryii (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoryii, I fully understand your concerns. Doctors are some of the worst. Fortunately one of the best editors and guiding lights at med is a doctor and a trustee! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-academy trusts

Could you keep your eye on this one, it probably will need a little protection. Northern Education Trust . Do we need a standard message to explain to the owners and staff of these Not-for profits, how they should approach a WP article and how they could assist us by providing PD photos and useful statistics while refraining from sockpuppetry and extreme COI editing?

I am battlng with High school (North America), the paragraph I paraphrased on what they actually did, the modus operandi- was deleted. I asked for assistance, on the page from an editor that knew the American system so they could rewrite it ( retrieve my paragraph from the history) but silence! Have you anyone you could ping that would do the task. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clem, I don't really know much about the US school system. It's as much as I can do these days to keep abreast of the constant changes to education in the UK! The best person to ask is John.

John, I assume you are watching ClemRutter (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who actually created Northern Education Trust? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of mine, one of three after news broke in Guardian- very little other on Google. MATs are a little covered area and now are as significant as LEAs used to be. Can you take a look- the Guardian reference is very good. ClemRutter (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clem, I have made a number of minor fixes that do not change the content. The article looks fine to me. I have semi-protected it for a while due to the blocked COI sockfarm and the obvious block evasion from the Sunderland based IP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your entry on my page

Hi I saw your comment on my talk page. I have responded to your comment in case you don't get notified automatically.Xoltron (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I clear my edit history? Or how do I remove myself out of wikipedia?

Please help me in clearing my edits and closing my account. I am frustrated with the derogatory comments of fellow editors who are impatient with my ignorance of the rules.I would like to clear my edit history and to move out of wikipedia as well. Saqiwa (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saqiwa, unfortunately once you have created an account on Wikipedia neither the account nor the edits you have made can be deleted from the records. I don't see any derogatory comments being made to you or about you, but if people are sending you standard messages about your editing, there must be a valid reason. Wikipedia is indeed 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', but it's not quite as simple as that. There are policies and guidelines to be followed and it's up to every user to familiarise themselves with them and the way we work. There are however many help pages and places you can go to ask questions and get help. Why give up now? Find out more about editing this wonderful project and continue contributing to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Saqiwa, you can request a name change if you want to, but it will not erase the edit history associated with the account. - Bri.public (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TPS/Again attention Kudpung: WP:Teahouse#Follow-up to Editors are editing and removing my articles and demanding quotations of sources when they are already quoted. seems to have provided some really bad advice to this editor about being beaten down by onerous rules. "[Prevailing is] about familiarity with a complicated set of intricate rules, applying intimidation effectively, and persistence". This needs correction if it is a widely-held view. And especially one promulgated to new and/or frustrated editors. - Bri.public (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Myth of the clean Wehrmacht

On 14 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the myth of the clean Wehrmacht persisted in Germany until the 1990s, when it was eroded by the Wehrmacht Exhibition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Myth of the clean Wehrmacht), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Shannon Wiratchai" article

Hi there! So I've added all the finishing touches to my article on mixed martial artist Shannon Wiratchai. The reason I felt compelled to write a whole new article about him is because he is a driving force behind the sport of MMA in Thailand. So with that being said, he's quite a prominent sporting figure who deserves some form of acknowledgement. Now that the article is complete and that any recurring issues have been resolved, I was wondering if the tags may be removed now.

Thank you for reaching out, Ptkday

Here is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Wiratchai Ptkday (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ′New page reviewer′ right

Thank you Kudpung, for granting the right, that too so quickly. Thank you. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 09:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gpkp. You're welcome. You may wish to consider archiving your talk messages instead or removing them - it's the normal thing to do, especially when with this user right you are going to get a lot of messages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kudpung. I have a question that, is it necessary to archive? I mean does it seem rude to just delete them off? --Gpkp [u • t • c] 09:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gpkp. Not necessarily rude, but it's normal to leave the messages because they can often be useful information for anyone having your tp on their watchlist (we call them 'talk page stalkers'). It's normal to remove insults, trolling, and routine bot messages you have read. I usually archive this page once a month, or more often if it gets too long. There are often reasons to consult an older diff or thread and archiving enables that rather than scrolling through 100s of edits in the history. Do read H:ARC which will tell you more about it and all the ways to do it manually and automatically. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) Lusouser

Thank you Kudpung, for your time and suggestion. I've started archiving my talk-page.--Gpkp [u • t • c] 10:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

Hi Kudpung, The article Ricardo Costa has just been submitted for deletion once more, such as all others recently published on the work of this person. The reason for deletion is no other but an obsessive personal attack, which lasts for about two years. That’s sad!

Please do what you can.

My best, Lusouser 15 September 2019 16:54 (UTC)

Lusouser, you'll need to substantiate any personal attack. In any case, the article is now at AfD and the community will decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I do that? It’s clear that the main reason given for deletion is just one: lack of references concerning the theme and its essay style. Both arguments are clearly false.

On the other hand, the article was first deleted, after about 12 years of existence with no problem. It has been deleted from one day to the other, without allowing time enough for new refs to be joined. Despite the fact that more than 10 were uploaded on the same day, a few minutes later the article vanished. Is that good faith?

The fact that proves personal attack is this :

The concept of “frontier” between fact and fiction, which is the core of the word docufiction, was considered by administrator User:Bearcat as “bullshit” (ipsis verbis). The definition of the concept has been simplified several times with no result. It is the same in articles as those of the French and Portuguese Wiki. With no objection. Bearcat refuses to understand that.

Anyone can easily note that all this story is senseless, and feel disappointed just as you and me.

What to do in face of someone so stubborn, mainly if you are sure he will change no way?

If you have no answer, please do something within your power so that voters may be aware of this issue. As far as I am concerned, I will not be able to do more than I have done. Maybe some other administrators will. Please try.

RULE citation: "Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party).” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lusouser (talk • contribs) 01:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My best,

Lusouser

15 September 2019 21:31 (UTC)

Lusouser, we are several hundred administrators here handling tens of thousands of enquiries every day. If you have an issue with admin Bearcat you must take it up with him. The French and Portugeuse Wikipedias do not operate the same strict notability criteria as the English Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia is independent and sets its own rules. In the case of your article, it will be decided by our editing community at AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with Bearcat was never solved with dialogue and now even less.

The issue with Bearcat, a Bear Culture fanatic, is that he tries to impose at all costs against universal Culture, which is the body of Wikipedia. As he himself ironically explains on his user page, his favorite tool is the bear's paw, a chilling metaphor for violent aggression.

This means that the big problem with Bearcat is its simple existence as administrator.

Thank you so much for your patience. I understand it well. Mine vanished.

Regards,

(talk) 12:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, any lack of dialogue between you and me is on your shoulders, not mine. I literally dialogued out the blowhole about the problems with your content, and you consistently either ignored what I was saying or went off on a fantasia of stringing big words together without actually making your speechifying mean anything parsable, rather than actually replying to what I or anybody else was actually saying to you.

Secondly, I don't "refuse" to understand things. The content you were trying to add to the docufiction article about "the concept of the frontier between fact and fiction" did not surpass my understanding — the problem was that it was your own original research, not actually supported by the references you were trying to use for it. Not one of your references defined "extreme docufiction" as a thing, and not one of them supported any of the things you were trying to say about it. We are not a place for publishing your own academic theses on a subject, or for advancing or promoting new ideas — we are a place for summarizing the ideas that established experts have already published in real media, and that's not what you were doing. You were advancing your own new synthesized interpretation of the topic, rather than summarizing the ideas other people have already published about it — and you are not allowed to do that on Wikipedia.

Thirdly, under our conflict of interest rules, you are not allowed to start your own articles about yourself and your own work, and you are not allowed to have an article that is referenced primarily to your own self-published content about yourself on your own website. To establish that you're notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, what is required is that you and your work have been the subjects of reliable source coverage in media: newspaper articles about you, magazine articles about you, books about you, critical reviews of your films, and on and so forth. But that's not what your articles are showing: all of the content about you is referenced to PDFs in your own webspace, whereas the independent sources are about topics that are completely tangential to you (like the premiere date of a Jim Jarmusch film, the definitions of terms, critical analysis of other people's work, etc.), and thus have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with supporting content about you because they don't mention you at all.

Again, Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish a biographical essay about yourself, or to expound on the themes of your own work in florid prose about the metaphorical scalding of other people's feet or the literal beauty of Sofia Coppola. An article about you has to be about you, not about everybody you've ever crossed paths with in your lifetime; it has to be referenced to reliable source coverage about you, not to your own self-published content about yourself; and it cannot be written by you, your personal friends, your family or your professional colleagues. It has to read like an encyclopedia article, it has to be neutral and objective and not advertorialized, it has to be referenced to reliable and independent sources about you, and it has to be written by somebody completely independent of you who is summarizing what those sources say about you and not editorializing about their own opinions.

And incidentally, "bear culture" just means "a gay man who's attracted to guys with body hair instead of smooth hairless guys", and has absolutely no implications whatsoever about a person's views on "universal culture" — so if you think those two things are somehow in opposition, then you have much bigger problems than your failure to understand Wikipedia's rules. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Digital empathy EditingAsargana96 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung,

Thanks for your message. I've reedited the digital empathy page based on the comments and suggestions left by other writers.

Please see if this rewrite has made the page any better. I welcome any suggestions you might have.

Thanks, Sidra

@@ Line 347: / Line 347: @@
 ::::::Again, Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish a biographical essay about yourself, or to expound on the themes of your own work in florid prose about the metaphorical scalding of other people's feet or the literal beauty of Sofia Coppola. An article about you has to be ''about you'', not about everybody you've ever crossed paths with in your lifetime; it has to be referenced to [[WP:RS|reliable source]] coverage ''about you'', not to your own self-published content about yourself; and it cannot be written by you, your personal friends, your family or your professional colleagues. It has to read like an ''encyclopedia'' article, it has to be [[WP:NPOV|neutral and objective]] and not [[WP:NOTADVERT|advertorialized]], it has to be referenced to reliable and independent sources ''about you'', and it has to be written by somebody completely independent of you who is summarizing what those sources say about you and not editorializing about their own opinions.
 ::::::And incidentally, "bear culture" just means "a gay man who's attracted to guys with body hair instead of smooth hairless guys", and has absolutely no implications whatsoever about a person's views on "universal culture" — so if you think those two things are somehow in opposition, then you have much bigger problems than your failure to understand Wikipedia's rules. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 14:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
+== Re: Digital empathy Editing[[User:Asargana96|Asargana96]] ([[User talk:Asargana96|talk]]) 00:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC) ==
+Hi Kudpung,
+Thanks for your message. I've reedited the digital empathy page based on the comments and suggestions left by other writers.
+Please see if this rewrite has made the page any better. I welcome any suggestions you might have.
+Thanks,
+Sidra