User talk:Kudpung

Please sign your message.

Status: Unknown

Hi, welcome to my talk page!

I make plenty of errors - if you are here to complain about a tag, a warning, a deletion, or a block, please assume good faith.
If I have erred, don't hesitate to tell me, but being rude will get you nowhere.
If you have erred, chances are I'll help you get round it and over it, but I don't suffer fools gladly ;)
Please click here to leave a new message.

On line now? It is 2:04 PM where this user lives near Udon Thani, Thailand

RfA clerking

I am currently drafting a clerking proposal because the clerking proposal on WP:RFA2015 is informal and vaguely defined. I do not want to open a multi-phase RfC just to confirm past consensus, so you know of any other major attempts at proposing clerking or similar system at RfA other than Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clerks? Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Esquivalience, why re-invent the wheel. Change its tyres thoughby all means. There is a perfectly good stand-alone clerking proposal at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clerks. It didn't get consensus because people do not want RfA to become an area where they can no longer misbehave with impunity. Like all attempts at RfA improvement, any new initiatives will probably fail for the same reasons. I would nevertheless give them my 100% support. Incremental changes like these, if made, are none--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)theless likely to gain more traction as a stand-alone proposal rather than long winded RfAs that try to treat many issues at the same time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Please take a look at Newton Public Schools. There is an ongoing dispute between several editors, one of whom is pushing hard on a POV and is to put it mildly, very verbose. Please help if you can. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See talk page, John. Perhaps you would like to organise the RfC. I won't take part in it because I'm now involved as the protecting admin, but I'll keep an eye on it and warn anyone who tries to monopolise it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never done an RfC, but at this point, the talk page is so trashed I cannot even tell who said what, much less when. Its almost like politics! John from Idegon (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

meh

Nothing to see here

REMEMBER, WE ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS. as are the contributors. Thanks.Letterhead330 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you have read the english translation of......what? No clue what youre talking about. There is a panel of scientists involved in bosnian pyramids. Clearly, you are focussing on the discoverer in a prejudiced fashion and ignoring all the other contributors to the discovery's proving. Wouldnt you say?

did you read LaViolettes page?

Moreover based on the predictions of this theory, he developed an alternative cosmology that effectively replaces the big bang theory. In fact, in 1986, he was the first to cast doubt on the big bang theory by showing that it makes a far poorer fit to existing astronomical data when compared to this new non-expanding universe cosmology.

The subquantum kinetics cosmology also led him to make successful predictions about galaxy evolution that were later verified with the Hubble Space Telescope.

Dr. LaViolette is credited with the discovery of the planetary-stellar mass-luminosity relation which demonstrates that the Sun, planets, stars, and supernova explosions are powered by spontaneous energy creation through photon blueshifting. With this relation, he successfully predicted the mass-luminosity ratio of the first brown dwarf to be discovered.More recently, his maser signal blueshifting prediction has found confirmation following publication of the discovery of a blueshift in the Pioneer 10 spacecraft tracking data.

Dr. LaViolette is the first to predict that high intensity volleys of cosmic ray particles travel directly to our planet from distant sources in our Galaxy, a phenomenon now confirmed by scientific data. He is also the first to discover high concentrations of cosmic dust in Ice Age polar ice, indicating the occurrence of a global cosmic catastrophe in ancient times.Based on this work, he made predictions about the entry of interstellar dust into the solar system ten years before its confirmation in 1993 by data from the Ulysses spacecraft and by radar observations from New Zealand.

He also originated the glacier wave flood theory that not only provides a reasonable scientific explanation for widespread continental floods, but also presents a credible explanation for the sudden freezing of the arctic mammoths and demise of the Pleistocene mammals. Also he developed a novel theory that links geomagnetic flips to the past occurrence of immense solar flare storm outbursts.

He is the developer of subquantum kinetics, a novel approach to microphysics that not only accounts for electric, magnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces in a unified manner,

Letterhead330, I have collapsed this. Please see the warnings on your talk page.

comment

Nothing to see here - again

http://starburstfound.org/letters-of-support/ Kudpung... presidential letter - didnt realize theyre clickable, it was Reagan -- still a president, and this man invented several quantum and astronomy sciences. This is the letters of support link - you might read it. Your system is geared to reject the very people who create wiki, and something appears awry in that methodology. How exactly can WIKI work out, when you reject volunteers editing wrong info pages? (2006 is last links for the "claimed" now proven pyramids; 2016 is a whole decade of discoveries youre refusing, and I heard of this from Semir's site, but now I know it to be not an accident. Sorry, but I dont see any rectification and the slurs on Dr. La Violette will make interesting video fodder for the way WIKI operates. It is okay for me to document this treatment, and is that alright, or will it be construed as something personal? (all the comments so far avoid fixing the problem and by golly, theyre insulting.) Letterhead330 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Superwave Theory[reply]

• Letter from Senator Packwood to the U.S. National Science Foundation

• Letter from Christopher Lehman, Special Assistant to the President

• Letter from Dr. Korotkovitch (Leningrad) to the National Science Foundation

• Letter from Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts

• Letter from Sir Crispin Tickell UK Mission to the UN

• Letter from Wilbert Chagula, Tanzanian ambassador to the UN Cosmology

• Letter from professor Georges de Vaucouleur, University of Texas, Austin

• Letter from professor Jean-Claude Pecker, College of France and professor Jean-Pierre Vigier, director of research CNRS

• Letter from professor Jean-Claude Pecker, College of France

• Letter from professor Jean-Pierre Vigier, director of research CNRS

• Letter from Grote Reber, father of radio astronomy

• Letter from professor Paul Marmet, National Research Council of Canada

• Letter from professor Dean Turner, University of Northern Colorado Feeling Tone Theory

• Letter from professor Karl Pribram, Neuropsychology Laboratory, Stanford University

• Letter from professor Walter Freeman, Division of Neurobiology, UC Berkeley

• Letter from professor Ted Packard, Chairman, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah

• Letter from professor Richard Rowan, Director of Counseling Services, The Evergreen State College

• Letter from Dee Dickinson, Coordinator, New Horizons for Learning

• Letter from Hazel Henderson, Co-Director, Princeton Center for Alternative Futures Aerospace Technology: NASA Space Plane Correspondence

• Letter from Charles Morris, Asst. Dir. NASA Aero-Space Plane Program

• Letter to Charles Morris, Asst. Dir. NASA Aero-Space Plane Program

Requests for Information

• Institutional affiliations of people requesting information on Starburst research (1984-1989)

Actually kudpung, Im beginning to see that the many times Ive accepted a WIKI search result questing info, may have been a severe error -- if you seriously intend to keep the bosnian pyramids back in the stone age with spurious links and a very questionable narrative...what of the other pages? This is concerning but, also enlightening at the same time, and I think its best for WIKI to remain as it is, uninformed, touting pure nonsense about some very real and important pyramids, and to cease trying to change what apparently is a very much closed mentality to being current and with the times. :) I will not offer my time to adjust any of your pages in future, because I find WIKI now to be very non-credible and inaccurate, and a poor source of facts in the tradition of spurious sources. Thanks for the impression, and happy volunteering. Letterhead330 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see the warnings on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Kudpung, kindly "vanish" me...I am quite sorry for having defended WIKI in the past when called spurious and very inaccurate, and realize I was wrong to give WIKI bennie of doubt. Thanks so much. I dont volunteer to be abused. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letterhead330 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...but apparently you volunteer to abuse others. How ironic. Mensa teach you that?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning and complaint over disrespectful user

Kudpung,

In a shocking and unbelievable move, you have given my IP a warning for "blatantly harassing" another user. Funny thing is, I was respectfully calling out User talk:John from Idegon for blatantly harassing me and another Wikipedian. He called me an "east coast elistic prick", and said he didn't give a "flying fuck" about the town of another editor, and he gets off scot-free while you have occupied yourself with issuing my IP a warning for "blatant harassment". I challenge you to materialize once instance of "harassment" on my part - you will find only my responses to being harassed by an internet troll. Please tell me Kudpung - are you disgraced by your punitive act against a victim of an ad-hominem verbal attack, while unthinkably ignoring the guilty perpetrator of harassment? If you do not extend this same warning to him, you will have confirmed your utterly inconsistent, unjust, and disparate treatment of Wiki users based on contribution history. Kudpung - can you find one instance of use of profanity by my IP in my respectful and humane discourse? Yet I get warned, after being called an "elitist prick" whose town the troll in question "[doesn't] give a flying fuck"? Your behavior has shocked me into understanding the true degree of hegemonic arrogance which apparently pervades Wikipedia's administrators.

Kudpung - I eagerly await to hear your justification for vilifying a victim of profane verbal attacks launched by an established editor, nepotistically ignoring a flagrant and obvious verbal abuser, and attacking a newcomer to Wikipedia who is now certain never to contribute. 73.219.217.243 (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I have replied on your talk page with a final warning.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung - I did see the thoughtless invective you launched against me on my page, and I left you with a request to explain your perplexing behaviour: falsely accusing an innocent recipient of having given "abusive diatribes" when in fact all of my language has been respectful and I have been called an "elitist prick" by your troll editor-friend "John from Idegon". I eagerly await to hear your justification for such insanity - attacking the passive and innocent victim of such profane verbal attacks, of which your warning shockingly suggests I am a perpetrator rather than a victim. In doing so I hope you will start to use factual quotes as I have, instead of continued false accusations to appease your friend, flying in the face of all reason and civility. Thanks. 73.219.217.243 (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, Kudpung is a grade-A idiot. Spends way too much time on here, slithering around RfA, and putting off as many people as possible from applying. Moron. 81.144.199.2 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming Committee

I am sorry Sir. Thanks by the way! Marc (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for help on school article

Kudpung, thank you for reviewing Corner Canyon High School (Draper), and thank you for the link to WP:WPSCH/AG - I appreciate the assistance!--Thelema12 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith is assumed only until its absence is proven

Hey thanks for the Twinkle, it was really thoughtful, appropriate and useful! I read it extremely carefully, including the links therein. I'm really ever so sorry if I broke the !rules (how exactly?), but you know what, when someone keeps disparaging you by asserting falsities without providing one single diff as supporting shred of evidence, despite your insistent requests, well maybe at that point you would lose your good faith too towards that editor. Wouldn't you? All the best. 87.112.180.82 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category creation

Hello, Kudpung. I noticed you just removed a Category page (People from Xichang) from my page Feng Yuanwei. I had just transposed the category from Chinese wikipedia. That category was translated for the new article. Zee money (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was redlinked when I removed it. If the category exists and is populated you can go ahead and restore ithe entry.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Op-ed: Whither Wikidata?

News and notes: Online harassment consultation; High voter turnout at ArbCom elections

In the media: Is Wikidata as transparent as it seems?; Wikimedia Fund-raising drive launches

Traffic report: Jonesing for episodes

Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Mrwallace05 socks

New socks NickiMinaj4life and 86.133.178.209 are obviously abusing accounts of Mrwallace05. 183.171.176.73 (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please register them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi Kudpung, I loaded up another article in my "Great Escapers" series Harold Milford and while tidying it up within 2 or 3 minutes of initial upload (within the last 10 minutes) some Vandal has been in and wiped it out. Please can you recover anything from my first upload ? Thanks for any help. Incidentally I seem to have been nominated for an award which is very nice. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BTW, if you haven't already done so, could you add the Mil Hist project template to the talk pages of the WWII related pages you have created. Tanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I routinely add it and I'll put it back on again, I think that they hit that literally as I was saving it. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]