Jump to content

User talk:Kudpung

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jessicagilmore (talk | contribs) at 08:34, 15 November 2010 (→‎Thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Status: Unknown

User:Kudpung has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Kudpung's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Kudpung!

Peace,
Rlevse
02:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.


The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For moving the workshop on sticky prods along, and taking the time to update so many editors, and working to encourage moderate and organized discussion. Maurreen (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Original Barnstar
For major housekeeping and recruitment of participants at the sticky prod workshop. Maurreen (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]



The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For offering your time and effort on an article you were previously unrelated with, and doing this exemplarily Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Socratic Barnstar
For elucidating your arguments so clearly, to the point where even your formatting helped to convey your point across Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Guidance Barnstar
for actually being helpful to a new user Aisha9152 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please do not edit archives as you did here. If you have new information, create a new entry on the correct board. I have reverted the change. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you agree that some action needs to be taken beyond my innocent lapse in knowing that archives should not of course be edited? Fact is, as I was linked directly to it, and as it had never been closed, I actually failed to notice that it was an archived page until it was too late. Perhaps you could do something about it, as it was just allowed to lapse last time. --Kudpung (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, as per the notice when you edit my talkpage, do not use talkback templates there. Second, the reason it got archived is because none of the dozens of admins who monitor ANI felt it required actions. Third, I will not unilaterally impose something based on the results of #2. If you feel action needs to be taken because additional problems have resurfaced, make a new report at ANI - reference the original, and provide complete diff's of the newer problems. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have been another 19 new pages added in the last 72 hours. There are now close on 500 of these recent entries. A random stab (which nevertheless took over an hour) shows that many of them are extremely poorly sourced BLP and that further Internet searches fail to reveal sources that assert notability. I doubt that anyone who does not have recourse to bots, filters, scripts, or AWB, will spend days listing all the diffs as you suggest. I am trying to be helpful by suggesting that we try to find another solution.--Kudpung (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Already blocked very late last night.--Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wow! you have alot of award!

keep up the good work :)







Thank you

Hello. Thank you for your message relating to my article placed on Wikipedia. I am still trying to get to grips with the whole system and how to correctly use the site. I will endeavour to reference any further article I add so that the inclusions I make are considered legitimate. Thank you again for your message and I will probably be in touch when I encounter another problem. Thanks again (Rain391 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)) l[reply]

Don't worry. It hasn't been listed for deletion, but you quickly need to ais is to take a look at other articles about small places such as for example Sherrard's Green, open them in editing mode and see how they have been put together (don't change anything in there though!). --Kudpung (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Groves

Hi. Could you take a look at this so you can get an idea what is going on. I have added your talkpage to my watchlist. Might I suggest you add the Groves article to yours because the propagandizing and editorializing are nowhere near done yet. I am so tired of being outnumbered and marginalized. To have a disinterested editor with at least an open mind monitoring the page's editing would be in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopaedia, not a site where propagandists can work unchecked by manipulating and bullying the system. You have that discretion under WP:IAR. Just compare my edits with those of the editor who immediately gutted them. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've just left a new comment there already. I have on my watchlist every single page I have ever visited or edited in this encyclopedia, but I think it's now over to you guys. I don't see my rôle as a teacher invigilating an exam, and I think the WP:EAR department has done what it can. If there are serious breaches in content or behaviour policy, as a very last resort the editors concerned will have to make a list of diffs and a perfectly documented rationale and take it to the appropriate dispute resolution board. I hope you'll be able to resolve your differences and collaborate together without such drastic recourse. Avoidance of heated language goes a huge way in getting things sorted out.--Kudpung (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

: Hi. I am assuming you may be asleep as according to this page it is 1:56 AM right now where you live. I won't expect a response then until your convenience. I just wanted to let you know I responded to the other editor and would like to get back to editing the Groves page, but am afraid to do so now for fear of violating WP:3RR. I know there are exceptions to 3RR (like WP:IAR, et al) but I can't and won't risk being blocked, so when do you think I can start re-editing/fixing the Groves page? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received a response from the editor with whom I have been in this dispute who states that the Emma Groves article is subject to (see "Community restrictions").

"All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first."

I see I was right all along to contact you. Can you tell me how to proceed under WP:1RR when you have the chance. I have never been in this situation. I mean I understand one edit per 24 hours, but now that this other editor has the article as he/she wants, the onus would be on me to make changes. Then he/she would re-edit, and so on, a kind of ridiculous two step, barring the entry of any third persons, which seems unlikely, as none came forward for three years (since 2007), as you know. So editing the Groves page will be like a Wile E. Coyote/Roadrunner cartoon, or maybe Tom and Jerry. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of the 1rr for NI related issues. In clear cases of POV pushing or systematic slow vandalism, the period does not have to be 24 hours - the revert rule could be applied even if it concerns 1 rev a month. It needs, however, to be exceptionally well proven, and that could take months. Remember that Rome was not built in a day, and we have plenty of other editing tasks that need the help of skilled Wikipedians. At all costs, avoid falling foul of either the 1rr or 3rr rules, blocking is almost always the admin's reactions and is almost instantaneous. I have it on my watch list and if I have time I might even draft a suggested neutral replacement article; as I mentioned before, there are plenty of possiblilities for recycling the surplus material.--Kudpung (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for listening and for your expertise. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know of a funny coincidence. I was checking out the Brenda Cowling page to see if anything had been sorted out (she's still not dead apparently) and on the talk page I noticed we had responded consecutively, twice! Odd case that, some "relative" of hers insists she died, but no death notice in any reliable publication. Just wanted to share. Regards. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice regarding User:Kudpung99

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — SpikeToronto 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE:  Blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Shyguy1991. — SpikeToronto 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Spike, for your perspicacity and rapid action. --Kudpung (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome. I think the real heroes are User:EurekaLott for noticing the similarity to edits by blocked editor User:Shyguy1991 and User:MuZemike for doing the CheckUser, confirming that it was a sock, and saving me the hassle of filing at SPI. Unfortunately, there are well over 200 edits by Kudpung99 that have to be gone through! I’m glad no one will confuse the two of you anymore. — SpikeToronto 04:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Mindxmedia:

"Mindxmedia is a modern media company, we offer a wide range of services, traditional printed material production, to help promote accession by a variety of products and services. With us you can order what you need among professional and promotional clothing, roll-ups, promotional pens and printed materials. We sell everything you can think of putting pressure on and then some, there are no limits to how creative we can be. We are your connection to various businesses such as public relations firms, advertising agencies, printers, professional and business profile, promotional gifts and giveaways suppliers. All for the convenience of our customers, you have problems, please contact us and we will solve it with you." HalfShadow 07:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're too late - I've already done it and put on the article tp ;)--Kudpung (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crap. I thought I got there first. HalfShadow 07:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:)--Kudpung (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What keeps mankind alive?

Mack the Knife has it's own page so why not this song? It's a Left-wing song and I am merely quoting it's lyrics. I made no statement as to whether it's ideas were good or bad so I don't see I can be expressing a POV. SmokeyTheCat 08:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is not much point in creating stubs when articles that can accomodate them already exist. The main problem however is the unsourced WP:POV - wherever it comes from, you are responsible for reproducing it. The lack of source alone is enough to have this sub deleted. I'm suggesting that if it is an intersting piece of information connected with the Drei Groschen Oper that is worth mentioning at all, the,n it should be in its associated article. I'll probably merge and redirect more if I find it, or spin off a standalone article about the songs from the opera. I'm happy to explain more if you like. --Kudpung (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Triwbe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Skarebo's talk page.
Message added 10:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

re:Claudia Lindsey

Hi Kudpung. Respectfully I disagree with your philosophy towards stubs. You may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Stub for perhaps a more balanced view. Also I found your comments condescending, particularly since I've contributed to several feature articles (most recently Tosca and L'Orfeo) and good articles at wikipedia, have been editing on here for years, and have created hundreds of articles (some recent examples of more extensive articles being Mac Morgan and Lauren Flanigan). Further, I had two refs and the article clearly meets the requirement at WP:Music and WP:Creative, so I'm not really sure why you were harping on references and notability. I, and many other editors, occassionally create basic stubs knowing full well that we won't take the article beyond that level. That is a good thing. For example on October 22 I created this stub of Marie Sasse which another editor has turned into this current version which is much improved. He had never heard of the singer until I created the stub and it inspired him to make a beautiful article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Wisbech Grammar School

Haha, oh, ok! I think the hint might perhaps have been a bit too subtle for that early in the morning! Actually, I might just do that, then. I'm going in to meet up with one of my old school masters later this week to have a look through their archives, so hopefully might be able to expand it a bit further later. Rob (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) But will they be valid third party accessible reliable sources? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly going to have a look at a 1939 published history of the school[1] which is publically available (albeit mainly in the Wisbech area) and to take a few more up-to-date pictures. Rob (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I think I'd just pressed 2 instead of " Rob (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confuse

I'm very confuse right now. Because there a lot of rules.


Signed by Jean-Carlo Salinas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Carlo Salinas (talk • contribs) 12:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Gonzonoir's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

andrea mohr

Hello, you have edited the article of Andrea Mohr. What is the difference to her article and the one of her co-offender Andrew Fraser? Thank you, best wishes ~~Christine 0099~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.212.230 (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Links please, and sign your posts (see page top). Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK: The Mohr article had no referenced sources that convinced us that the article is important enough (notable) for an entry in an encyclopedia. The Fraser seems to possibly fulfill these requirements. I did not contribute to either of them. Hope this helps. You are of course welcome to improve either or both of these articles, don't hesitate to ask if you would like help with the editing tools. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, I have added a link and done some changes. I hope this meets your approval. Thank you, all the best (hope the signature works, pardon me)Christine0099 (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you're getting there. Note that there is a difference between References and External links. References are the most important, they tell the reader that you didn't make up what you have written, and tell us that the subject is important enough to have an article in this encyclopedia. There are a lot of strict rules about what sources can be used. If you can read German, you'll find a similar set of rules in the German Wikipedia. If you prefer English, you should start at WP:RS; WP:V; and WP:CITE. External links are for linking to any supplementary. information that is relevant to the subject and might provide additional background information. Do take a moment to follow the advice in the link I posted on your talk page. Happy editing!--Kudpung (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Kupdung, once again I need your help, please. I have done a mistake. I did a few changes on the article andrea mohr but I forgot to log in so it shows now my IP adresse. I dont want that. How can I change it? Thank you so much for all your kind help [[Christine0099 (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)]][reply]
Hi Chrisine. There's nothing you can do about your IP edit now. Just remember to log in every time in the future. On the login box, if your check "Remember me for 30 days", you'll automatically be logged in. However, until you are absolutely sure, always check at the top of the page to see if you are really logged in. Do continue to develop your article - already some other editors are making minor corrections for you. However, please go to your talk page and follow all the links I gave you for the instructions how to edit pages, how to make edit summaries, and how to sign your name on talk pages. Take care, and happy editing!--Kudpung (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christine, if you meant the only edit from today, I believe that I have taken care of it - please do be cautious in the future. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much both of you. I like it here on Wikipedia everyone is very polite, helpful and attentiv that is really great working with you all. Yes Kudpunk I found the links you have mailed me very helpful, just not been through all yet but I will. Wishing you both a lovely weekend [[ Christine0099 (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC) ]][reply]

Kudpung

Hey bro thanks for the tips. Please feel free to contact me if you need any help with anything, and have a nice day! Bunkerdiver (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Diannaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:diannaa/tb}} template.


I have responded to your question and have asked for your help on an unrelated matter. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful

Please be more careful when removing references. The cite in the Shirley Love article wasn't to another wikipedia article but to a print reference. Yes, wikipedia does have an article on that print reference, but the citation was to the actual reference source and not the wiki page. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from disruptive editing while other editors are clearing up the mess your friends have made.--Kudpung (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:AGF and WP:Civil. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up and referencing unsourced opera BLPs

Hi Kudpung, I appreciate your concern about these articles and possible deficiences in referencing. If you are going to PROD them, I'd really appreciate it if you could notify WikiProject Opera on our talk page, so they don't slip under the radar and your concerns can be addressed. We don't have every single singer on our individual watchlists and unfortunately, User:ArticleAlertbot, which we had subscribed to, is no longer functioning. If you'd like to discuss your concerns further with other editors who regularly work in this area and have access to specialised publications, please don't hesitate to visit the project's talk page the project's talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voc. Please start a new section with new messages. You can be sure that clean up operations like this, that have taken ten hours today, are the least inspiring of all the work I do on Wikipedia, especially when it concerns opera. I am most certainly not a deletionist and much of the time is spent copy editing, removing red-herring references, deleting passages of blatant copyvio, and providing new, accurate references. PROD is absolutely a last resort and affects probably less than 1%. Today's effort is a systematic alphabetical trip through the pages in Category:United States opera singer stubs. I personally feel it would be more productive if people from your Opera project could take time out from mass producing these stubs, to aim for some serious quality before the next bot drive to delete all the poorly referenced BLPs. If I can do it, so can they - we all have access to the same sources:) Cheers.--Kudpung (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I was commenting under the same topic, but never mind.;-) I have concerns about mass-stub creation with minimal referencing by 4meter4 as well. However, I wish you wouldn't tar the the whole project with that brush. Many of the articles that you've been tagging, weren't created by members of our project at all. The vast majority of us create well-referenced articles for singers, composers etc. that are clearly notable or spend our time expanding clearly notable stubs to viable articles, as I recently did to this, which became this. I'm not asking you to reference them yourself, but as I explained before, we can't address the problems and rescue a PROD if we don't know about it. Many of us have access to the online editions of the Grove and OUP publications, specialist news archives, hardcopy reference books etc. I would appreciate if you could copy any prod warnings for those that you are prodding to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera (apart from those created by 4meter4, who will get the warning anyway). After all, you have to warn creators and significant contributors anyway, so why not the OP too? That's all I'm asking. But if you don't want to, that's OK. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not unaware that your particular project is comprised almost exclusively of bios. One of the projects I work closely with is that of BLP and helping to develop and implement policy across the entire board. What I'm doing today Voc, rather than inflating my ego by mass producing poorly sourced stubs , is a totally boring, very thankless gnome task. I'm certainly not tarring any one with brushes, but I would be hounded for tendentious editing if I were to concentrate only on the disruptive work of one editor. You can only address the problem stubs if someone flags them to bring them to your attention. I'm not a member of your project, and I am not really motivated into making myself more work by looking up the creator of each article I put a {{refimprove}} tag on to see if he/she is. Many user names are obviously familiar to me and if they do not ring warning bells I accord them all the greatest respect and assume their edits, however poor, to be in GF. I would hesitate before making a mountain out of a molehill out of the isolated two or three PRODS that were very special cases which I could even have CSD if I had wanted. Nobody owns articles, not even the projects that police them. I know all about projects, I founded and run one, and fortunately it's got absolutely nothing remotely to do with opera, and I'm personally most welcoming when a non member come in and lends a hand :o) --Kudpung (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no project owns articles, but we can help source them if we are aware of the problem, and I personally appreciate what you are doing. I wasn't asking for notification of every maintenance/reimprove tag, and we have a bot that informs us of completely unsourced opera BLPs which I check daily. I was only asking for PROD notification, but I won't bring it up again. Voceditenore (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Lipton year of birth missing?

Why did you add the Category:Year of birth missing (living people) to Martha Lipton's article? If it was a mistake, I suggest you revert your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page header.--Kudpung (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right

You people got quite some nerve. So you want to discuss with me the reason why I keep a more Germanic tone to my English translations? As you can see, that is obviously not a lack of what you would consider "proper knowledge". Spare me, please. You're free to be "copyediting" my translations as much as you like, but if I were you I would bother showing some gratitude for the work. --Fhmann (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)s[reply]

Hi Fehmann. Please stay calm. We (and I particularly) welcome all contributions on Germany related subjects. Apart from a genuine friendly offer of help, there were no suggestions whatsoever of the kind you are making. --Kudpung (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bordeleau

Thank you for translating the page for me, I greatly appreciate it. Weatherman05071 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle again

Could you have a look at what happened with Mohammed El-hadhiri for me, please? I used Twinkle for sending it to AfD and watched carefully while it rolled though the process. This time it seems to have missed adding the AfD template to the article page, although it has created the AfD page and listed it on today's AfD log. Any idea what's going wrong? Ooops - just realised that you are probably asleep right now, so I'll add the article template manually for now.--Plad2 (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Nominating Halimzai (politician) for AfD also using Twinkle seems to have completed all the relevant steps without problems (or at least none that I can see). I have a couple more to do from the BLP Rescue Project current month (Dec 2008) so I think I will continue and see what happens.--Plad2 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philippa. yes, I fell asleep at my desk and didn't change the status message at the top of the page. I just wanted to reassure you that I've now been looking at this for nearly an hour and I 'll get back to you in a few moments. Watch this space ;) --Kudpung (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right here we go. First let me thank you for the commitment you have shown to the problem of unsourced BLPs. This kind of work among the mouldy old files festering in the basement of BLP is a thankless task like much of the housekeeping that has to be done. :BLP backlogs are a monumental task. Many new unsourced or poorly sourced pages get added every day without being tagged, simply due fall off the 30-cliff, unpatrolled at WP:New Page Patrol, because less experienced patrollers who like to rack up their edit count, prefer the low hanging fruit at the front of the list of daily new arrivals.
I hope WP:Twinkle is working alright for you now - it should do if you are using the the most recent version of a compatible browser. It works fine for me in both Safari (5.0.2)and FireFox (3.6.12) on Mac OS 10.6.4. If you are going to AfD a lot articles, you can also consider putting the WP:DELSORT script by User:John Vandenberg/Deletion sorting tool into your User:Plad2/monobook.js (or vector.js, depending on which Wikipedia skin you use). Many people don't bother even registering their AfDs on the relevant delsort pages, but it does provide added exposure to the AfD, and vastly increases the likelihood that people will come and comment - in my opinion, AfD is as much about rescuing articles as getting them deleted. As you have seen in the past, it often needs an AfD simply to galvanise people into action.
I see you have also been given some advice at BKLP Rescue. The answer you got is of course basically correct, but perhaps it did not address the the finer points where many articles need to be considered individually. I sometimes spend as much as an hour trying to find sources, but finally still have to choose on of the methods of deletion. Assuming that one has done all the required research WP:BEFORE applying AfD template (although to go by some of the uncivil comment I get on my AfD noms, anyone would believe I'm a drive-by deletionist!), a WP:PROD might indeed be the best and most economical solution. If after doing WP:BEFORE you are reasonably sure that no other editors will be able to come up with sustainable reasons for disputing the PROD, then by all means PROD it. It saves tying up editor time on AfD, and most importantly, it prevents a really bad or non notable article from being kept by default just because there is insufficient response at AfD. If nobody comes along to contest a PROD, the article quietly gets removed without a fuss after 7 days. Thus, the general route to deletion (depending on the criteria of course) is CSD --> PROD/BLPPROD --> AfD --> WP:DRV (see special note at DRV concerning stubs).
You'll see now, that the two examples you have cited above, are in fact first class candidates for PROD rather than AfD: they've been languishing unresolved for a long time - years in some case - in the uBLP category, your research for on and offline sources has come up with nothing (and as a professional reader/editor/publisher, you understand this more than most of us), and the page hits are low (probably only search engine crawlers), and very few edits by other contributors except for the stubbers, categorisers, AWBers, and housekeeping bots, and the article creator has probably contributed very little else to the encyclopedia.
I hope all this helps and that you didn't think it was TLDR. You probably kow most of it anyway, but it will be reassurin for you to know from another editor that you are on the right track, and you can even use some of it for giving advice to others. If you need any more ideas or suggestions, don't hesitate to shout - VFR only I'm afraid ;) Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Very helpful. You're correct in thinking that I was a bit puzzled by the advice I got re PROD vs. AFD. I had previously thought that PROD should be the first step but following J04N's advice (and the edit summary I had from the editor removing the PROD), it seemed that I had got that wrong. I will go back to PROD first and not mind if they get removed. It's a bit galling when one has spent a serious amount of time fruitlessly searching for anything which might count as an RS, to have that research dismissed in a matter of seconds. But hey, I know that's how it works here. And thanks also for the reminder about the Delsort script.--Plad2 (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on PROD vs AfD has continued here with some different viewpoints being expressed. I mention just in case you want to take a look. I don't personally see any need to prolong the discussion. I think I've got enough from what's been said so far to arrive at a balance on the decision whether to PROD or send to AfD (which kinda boils down to "it depends..."), so I'm OK with that. Interestingly enough the article with which I started this section Mohammed El-hadhiri now appears to be moving to a "Keep" as another editor spotted an alternate spelling of the subject's name on the list of Pan-African delegates (which I feel I possibly should have seen as the transliteration of Arabic names can vary enormously).--Plad2 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger is perfectly correct in his literal interpretation of the guideline. That is why a correctly PRODed article will slip away uncontested after seven days. I think it's always best not to hint at any 'possibles' in the wording of a PROD rationale. After all, the PROD idea is for the deletion to be taken for granted. Doing AfD, especially for a ten-word stub that nobody has taken any interest in for two years, is, IMHO, counterproductive considering the effort required, and even more so if its unsourced presence is innocuous. The project really needs to consider focusing its priorities on the articles that have greater quantities of unsourced content, and where keeping them could clearly be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Problem is, with clean up campaigns like these, people earn their barnstars on quantity (of articles) rather than on quality, as opposed to the WP:GOCE campaigns that award for word count. As you say, it kinda boils down to "it depends...", so don't hesitate to ask me again any time you want another opinion. Naturally I can't promise to always be right, but I do have a way at looking at the grey between the black and white aspects of many of our policies - nothing is written in stone. See for example the Charles Warnken discussion lower down on this page, where an editor questions why I declined his WP:CSD. --Kudpung (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As ever, very helpful, thank you. I really do appreciate your views on this. My personal criteria for AfD now includes people whose name are a transliteration from a non-Roman language (assuming that there is some assertion of notability) as I've now seen three found sources by someone with better knowledge of the language searching for a different version of the name. I agree with your point about the rather skewed focus of the drive to source all UBLPs. There is no doubt that there are much larger issues lurking below the surface of this whole initiative but I still think it is worth doing this basic pass through the whole list as we are weeding out a number of hoaxes, copyvios, spam, very occasional attack pages (which is what got the debate started in the first place), controversial text and some non-notables along the way. Every single one of those articles will have had a pair of eyes on it by the time we finish, which is no bad thing. The fact that what's left will be a much larger body with "refimprove" tags will have to be addressed, of course. I have worries about determining value by word count. Me, I've got to the point where I seriously doubt the point of having literally hundreds of two line stubs on Thai premier league (2004 season) footballers who technically meet WP:ATH but are difficult to source (that's a topic for the folks over at the Football Project) but I've also found more worthwhile (IMO) stubs which I have enjoyed expanding and referencing.--Plad2 (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Plad2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Response to your query

Here's the response to your query. I'll do a bit of tweaking during the week and I think that should lay the concern to rest.--Plad2 (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Nomination of Pqcell for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Pqcell, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pqcell until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally PRODed this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pqcell&action=historysubmit&diff=394166515&oldid=394165475 --Kudpung (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete Articles

You said that, I have created some incomplete articles. Actually, those are some important articles. So, I wanted to start those. But, people can contribute there. And, I hope, soon those will be complete articles. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mailmurshed (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Mailmurshed, but almost every one of the articles you write gets deleted. Now please stop or you will be blocked again from editing the encyclopedia.--Kudpung (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Ross protection

Hi, Kudpung! Thanks for the nice note. I already salted the title, but if you'd like me to salt more, please let me know. Thanks again.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Cave

Y'know, sometimes there's a difference between sites where you can get information while you're starting an article (like IMDb) and sites that you can actually use in the article as references (like newspaper articles)...so sometimes you gotta give a guy more than five minutes to actually hunt down better sources, eh? (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I didn't realise it was you. Workin' overtime on NPP, there's so much rubbish coming in today. Think I'll take a break and go get a cuppa tea ;)--Kudpung (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!
GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs

We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update.

Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join!

Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive.

Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line!


Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Charles Warnken

You said, "Generally, academics and PhD members of faculty are considered notable," concerning my speedy-delete tag of Charles Warnken. Could you please cite Wikipedia policy or precedence that supports your claim? Frankly, I think you are wrong. There are plenty of academics and/or Ph. D.'s that are not necessarily notable. Checking over WP:ACADEMIC, I do not see how Dr. Warnken meets any of the nine criteria. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that as the CSD tag had been applied with in 13 minutes of the new article being posted, that the CSD was based on the rather unusual wording of the lead, and the paucity of references - both which I improved, and thereby creating sufficient doubt as to the article being a case for immediate deletion. Before doing a CSD, I feel that WP:BEFORE is essential. (On Labor Day 2007 I founded the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit. It's a place to "heal" articles about subjects that are probably notable, but the article themselves face imminent deletion for other reasons.)
WP:ACADEMIC goes on to clearly explain how exceptions to the nine points might be interpreted.Professors (in the American sense of the word) tend to be kept and deleted in about equal numbers. Generally, tenured professors at major research institutions and top liberal-arts colleges tend to be kept, while assistant professors without major awards are deleted.(AfD/Co#Ed). With academics especially, many editors tend to err on the side of caution at CSD (although less perhaps with possible non notable actors, rock musicians, and sports people, for example), and prefer to place either an appropriate maintenance tag on the article, or if deletion is really required, a PROD. It may have happened in the past that a Nobel Prize winner has been deleted simply because it was not mentioned in the stub. That means if a new article is not blatant advertising, a personal attack, a copyright violation, or an obvious hoax, the systems of PROD, BLPPROD, provide the creator with time to improve the article or justify its cause for existence, while AfD at least provide the article with a chance to defend itself and be judged by a consensus of the community.
I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever with the decision to take it to AfD, where after further investigation, I might even !vote in favour of its deletion.--Kudpung (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources helped, but only perhaps to get it out of speedy territory. I also tend to give articles about academics a little more leeway, but this one appeared to be non-notable on its face, and I still don't think he's notable, hence the AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RK. I'm glad if my opinion helped in some way - but it was of course only an opinion. All our decisions are a fine balancing act between what we feel, what we know, the policies & guidelines, and the enigmatic Wikipedia 'consensus'. In the face of the less expert but necessary work by some of our enthusiastic but less experienced/younger patrollers, you can understand why I initially queried your CSD. Keep up the good work. Cheers.--Kudpung (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for the barnstar! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung&oldid=396870191"