User talk:Kudpung

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 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

A beer for you!

Have one on me. Worcester, meet Leyton. Leyton, meet Worcester  :) Hope all's well. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	So, here it is Kudpung, the Writer's Barnstar, for your significant recent work in writing for and publishing the The Signpost. Your initiative to keep this reader's resource active is appreciated. I also enjoyed your writing style and candor in the pieces I read. Thanks again for your proactive approach on Wikipedia. North America1000 08:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Northamerica1000, thank you for the kind words. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A(nother) barnstar for you!

		The Signpost Barnstar
		For all your work on the WP:Signpost, and helping to keep it afloat. I'm really inconsistent, and a pretty awful writer, but I hope to be contributing some to the 'Post for a long time, so again, thanks for your work. It's been a pleasure working with you. Till next time — Eddie891 Talk Work 23:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Eddie891, thank you too, for the kind words. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Vastly inappropriate shutdown of your voice

I found this vastly inappropriate and disturbing. Since when is pre-emptive muzzling of a response to an accusation of wrongdoing an appropriate action with the admin toolset? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I find it equally as disturbing and will be considering requesting community feedback as it is not a one off. Alex Shih (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not, Bri but it is a classic example of admins not being allowed to defend themselves when trolled, harassed, attacked, and finally bullied by other admins and totally falsely accused of misogyny. I made a fully explanatory email and was careful that it was polite in spite of being subjected to harassment. The warning is out of order and clearly oversteps admin authority, I have not made a PA against anyone - I'm too intelligent and careful in this totally oversensitive environment of Wikipedia, and I have not retired or resigned under any clouds whatsoever. FWIW, I have developed a debilitating age related ailment forcing me to spend half my time on my back and what's left of it training my staff to take over running my company. I'll not be responding to those wild insinuations, because I'm not going to have my immaculate block log and 10 years of clean dedication to this project sullied on the whim of an admin who hasn't even cared to understand what's going on, even if a more friendly admin has the good grace to unblock. There are many, many people out there who know me personally and know I'm not an idiot. Alex, thanks for your support, but escalating further won't help because I haven't the energy to defend myself and the peanut gallery would be calling for my head - as you know, they always do where an admin is involved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, this is with love and warmest wishes for all the work you've continuously done here. I'm sorry for what you've had/have to go through on a daily basis. I've known TNT as such a sensible admin and am sure they realize the misstep they've taken here. But this message is not for them, it's for you. Please take care of your health and sidestep the rampage in the way you only know you can. Love again, Lourdes 01:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested. Fram (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Fram, What admin or other action you may have taken was in the very best of good faith. Of that I am wholly convinced, whether or not it was in the best interest of escalation or de-escalation., as I mentioned to Alex Shih above. Now that it's very public we'll all have to let the community decide. There is a lot I would like to offer to the discussion, because from one person's perspective it's going to be one sided, but it's Friday evening and I can't and won't be logging in to Wikipedia over the weekend, besides which, under the threat of a block, I've been effectively muzzled by a steward from saying anything - even if it is debatable that that warning were appropriate or justified, or even of itself a PA.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A thanks

I was compelled to drop by and drop a barnstar after catching up on this month's Signpost, but it looks like Northamerica1000 and Eddie891 have beaten me to it. Due to other commitments, I have only been sporadically involved in the project as of late, and the Signpost has proved invaluable in my efforts to keep up with… well, the news. I've been appreciating your contributions from afar for many years and just wanted to put my thanks in words. Though I sometimes don't agree with some of your stances or decisions, I'd like to recognize the immense amount of energy you've put into keeping the paper going. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 15:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

thank you for everything

Hi. We didnt interact directly much, but your presence and work was all around. You, and your work meant a lot to me. When I am not on computer, I like to go back, through the history of enwiki. Like way back. We once even talked about the first ever WP:300 (that was like 10 years ago), remember? My point is, there were many occassions when/where I saw your contributions and/or activity. You are a very important contributor to enwiki. I hope everything is fine in your personal life, and that you remain active here; even if less active than usual. Again, i hope everything is fine, and i hope all the best to you. Again, thanks for everything, —usernamekiran(talk) 01:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I second this ^. Your contributions are definitely valued and I hope to see you around. Thank you for all you have done for Wikipedia. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran and TheSandDoctor:, Thank you both for the kind words. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I also wanted to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia (esp. the Signpost) and for the advice you gave me the last few times I considered running for adminship. I always found your advice very insightful and helpful. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Fair winds and following seas, Kudpung. We'll sorely miss your tireless commitment to Wikipedia. Please take care of your health, and I wish you much improvement on that score. Hope to see you around. Aloha ... Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

With all best wishes

Arriving here by a very roundabout route, I see some messages that suggest you may not be well. My very best wishes for a full and speedy recovery. Warm regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I add my support too- I was looking forward to meeting up one day in the distant future- maybe not, but I will keep on putting out an extra coffee cup- just in case.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts and prayers are with you as well! I sincerely wish you the very best.--John Cline (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-10-01/From_the_editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Jake Mason

Many years ago you salted Jake Mason after multiple speedy deletions of a TV producer. I have created a page for a notable musician who has the same name. The two people appear unconnected. Could you possibly unsalt this title so I can mave Jake Mason (musician) there as the primary topic. Thanks. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Kudpung can't help at the moment, but let me have a look. Worm^TT(talk) 13:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme:, I've removed the salting, it's been a while so hopefully it will be ok. I've looked at the article and the notability seems borderline to me, you might want to see if you can find a few more sources! Worm^TT(talk) 13:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Duffbeerforme and Worm That Turned:,, I am currently on Wikileave and do not have access to admin tools. . I would suggest however, that you find several more substantial references from truly in-depth sources. The one you have provided appears to be basically an interview and a promotion for a release. The claim to an award nomination also does not appear to be covered. As a BLP it's likely to be slated for deletion when it goes to mainspace even though you are autopatrolled. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Primary source for nomination [1]. A good independent source will soon follow and will be added to the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. There seems to be 2-3 sources anticipating his solo career, so I'm sure there's an article here. As Kudpung points out, it's likely to end up as a plausible deletion, but I'm sure you can manage that. As for Kudpung, hope you're well. Feel free to drop me a line :) Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have pinged you in an ANI thread

Hi Kudpung, I hope this finds you in good spirits. I realize that you are no longer very active on Wikipedia, and that you have resigned as an administrator, however I have pinged you in an ANI thread as you had participated in the two previous threads about the same issue. The current thread is here (unless it has been archived by the time you see this message): WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Francis_Schonken STILL edit-warring on issue he was just blocked six weeks for. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Lehrter Strasse

Seit langem, habe ich mich immer beabsichtigt , einen en.Wiki-Artikel für diese berühmte Straße in BLN zu schaffen, wo ich einst einer ihrer Bewohner war, in der Nähe der Propellerkneipe (eigentlich eine privat Wohnung in Wilmersdorf), Oscars Stahlfabrik, Mehlwums Lagerhaus für Kaugummis, der Kulturzentrum, der COMA Folterkammer, und der Lehrtergefãngnis. Wenn jemand mich kontaktieren möchte, um bei diesem Projekt zu helfen, wäre ich sehr dankbar. Bitte erstellen Sie einen Wikipedia-Account entweder auf en.Wiki oder de.Wiki, wenn Sie keinen haben, dann sende mir per Wikipedia email dein Benutzername mit, damit wir E-Mails austauschen können. Danke vielmals im voraus. (Benutzer mit der BLN IP-Nummer bitte hier klicken).

I have always been intending to create an en.Wiki article for this famous street in BLN where I was once one of its residents near the Propeller Bar (actually a private flat in Wilmersdorf), Oscar's steel factory, Mehlwum's chewing gum warehouse, the culture centre, and the COMA torture chamber and the prison. If any one would like to contact me to help with this project, I would be much obliged. Please create a Wikipedia account if you do not have one so that we can exchange emails. Many thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Kudpung:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 06:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I am glad you are not completely gone from wikipedia. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Nothing to see here. Let's move on

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (angle). In addition, your comment about what Eli355 did or didn't do at an RfA is completely inappropriate as to whether an article should be kept or not; please strike or remove it. Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Are you aware of the English expression 'People who live in glass houses...' ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC) You're committing a tu quoque fallacy. You're completely ignoring the substance of my concern by pointing out a prior bad action of myself – one which isn't even all that parallel. Perhaps you would agree to a 24-hour block as I had, then? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Doesn't look like you "agreed" to a block. Looks like FlightTime reported you at ANI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive988#Personal attacks, and then Cullen328 blocked you, stating "I have blocked the editor for 24 hours and made it clear that this behavior is unacceptable. I certainly hope that it does not resume." -- Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC) @Softlavender: Thanks for pinging people that really don't need to weigh in on the original matter here. The point was that Kudpung responded to me saying "You did this and it was bad" with "Well you once did something, too, and got blocked for it." Since that was something which I was blocked for, I facetiously suggested that Kudpung accept a block as well in an attempt to point out that he's not responding appropriately. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Again, it doesn't look like you "accepted" a block a few months ago, you were issued one for repeated personal attacks and insisting the target deserved it, and now you are templating a long-term well-respected regular and admin (recently resigned). Perhaps those editors would like to weigh in on this. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I never said I accepted one. Here, "...as I had" means that I had the block, as in "...as I had issued to me", not "...as I had accepted". This seems clear since people (almost?) never just accept blocks on their own. And if Her Royal Highness the Queen of France had behaved so poorly in regards to WP:AGF, I would have templated her too. If you think Kudpung can't respond himself and needs your help, then please respond to the substance of the complaint, and not going on about how well-respected he is. For crissakes, this was a clear misstep that I issued a simple caution for, and now you've helped manage to turn it into some big thing that it's really not. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC) The difference is, Deacon, that Softlavender, with whom I have also shared differences in the past, is a peer, and is supporting me here, and has some excellent photos of a mountain whose view soares up on the skyline from the bottom of my garden in France. I suggest you take a glass of really smooth Côtes du Ventoux AOC and rethink your Latin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC) You're continuing to derail the thread. Please just respond to the complaint and stop acting like a jerk. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) You're welcome to report it to ANI if you think it is a sanctionable offense. If you do not think it is a sanctionable offense, then why didn't you just address the comment at the AfD, rather than deciding to violate WP:DTTR and template an editor and recently resigned admin of 12 years and 97,000 edits? Do you think it was a block-worthy comment? If not, then why are you implying that Kudpung was out of line to point out your block less than three months ago, for edits and comments that were clear personal attacks (which you are still making, above)? Softlavender (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Striking a comment rather than simply editing it out is a disingenuous way of ensuring that common insults are read - and understood. And BTW, please don't refactor other users' edits on my talk page, or anywhere else for that matter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC) @Softlavender:, you know full well that WP:DTTR is only an essay and you can't "violate" an essay, therefore this is a deliberate attempt at deception and intimation that grossly violates the five pillars of WP, particularly as you are "helping" an experienced editor who clearly does not need it, especially since as we all know he is part of an Illuminati-esque cabal of admins here who can't be touched, and as such you really should be assisting the editor here who clearly needs it, as they are young, inexperienced, and perhaps a little volatile, but that is certainly understandable with these circumstances and therefore I demand you strike your comments, apologize and accept a 24 hour block to reflect on your actions. Sincerely - L'enfant du Loup 10:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC) (btw - Kudpung, I hear the 2012 Ventoux has a beautiful mix of plum and raspberry with a hint of chocolate! Thanks for reminding me, I need to pick up a bottle. Cheers!) Editors quote essays as commonly accepted community behavioral guidelines all the time and talk about violating them. Of course you can violate a behavioral-guideline essay. Right now you are violating WP:DEADHORSE. I have not been "helping" Kudpung, I have been responding to the bizarre behavior of another editor. And if you think Kudpung is "part of an Illuminati-esque cabal of admins here who can't be touched", you clearly have missed some of the major wiki events of the past two months. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC) @Softlavender: I think you clearly have missed that I was joking... (my entire post was a single, run-on sentence? nevermind, my bad). Anyway, I fully support Kudpung's comments and his position in general at RfA and I agree with your comments here. I think DV posts some strange demands, is a little too quick with the hot-headed replies and has been carrying a weird grudge against Kudpung for awhile now. But, it sure makes for interesting WP-TV viewing though! ;-) Cheers - wolf 09:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Break Let's try this again. First, Softlavender, while your intentions might be noble, the effect of trying to rush to Kudpung's defense has really just been to muddy the waters, so I'm asking that you please just stay out and let him respond directly. Second, Kudpung, your comment, "...If it is supposed to be humorours like his 'science' antics at RfA, then it has failed miserably..." (emphasis added) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (angle) is very inappropriate, and I'm asking you to strike it. It's inappropriate because it runs afoul of WP:AGF, and it's meant to prejudice others against keeping the article based on your accusations of misbehavior, and not on the merits of the article itself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Kudpung has read your request, and has obviously declined to strike his comment. You may not dictate who posts on Kudpung's talkpage, although he may. You also cannot dictate that he respond in any way or form to your message(s) here. If you feel this violates a policy or guideline, you are free to take that up on a noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I don't believe you are qualified to be commenting Deacon or even evoking AGF. I'll derail threads on my talk page to my heart's content - I've made nearly as many posts on it as you have total edits, and Softlavender is one of the people who is welcome here anytime. There's been worse harrassement here - it's what admins get for their efforts , and I'm pretty good at dealing with it, without even resorting to blocking the culprits. or even taking them to Aunty ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ANI notice There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI

This. Thought you should know... Cheers - wolf 17:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Wolf, along with his recent edit summary which should be suppressed, this is another issue that appears to demonstrate that he does not intend to maintain a collaborative spirit. Refactoring others' comments is a big no no. I would have blocked by now, but even if I had my tools, I wouldn't be able to due to WP:INVOLVED - that's another thing admins have to bear. I think it's best just to drop it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all your comments, including the bit about "dropping it". I reverted once because I disagreed with him not only changing someone else's comments, but doing it on yet another someone else's talk page. He reverted me, but I had no interest in getting involved any further beyond that (not going to get in an edit war over something that doesn't involve me). I figured I'd let you know about it and move on. But, with that said, I see that someone else has since reverted him again, restoring your comment.

Funny how things work on WP. Sometimes people pop out of the blue to support you, sometimes they pop out of blue just to lose their shit all over you. >cough!<R>cough!<f>cough!<A>cough!< Sorry... nasty chest cold. Anyway, take it easy. Cheers - wolf 01:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wolf, defecating on admins is a sport that some enjoy - even prolific contributors to FA. (some of whom have the Guiness Book of Records for the longest block logs). That, and the constant drama at RfA are the reasons why editors of the right calibre are not in a hurry to want to be admins nowadays. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review backlog

Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Backlog_chart_2 might also be of use to you (less frequently updated but has no data excluded, so shows the full history that I have of the backlog to late 2016). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Remind me...

Kudz - my brain is overloaded - did you tell me that when an article in the NPP queue was marked for deletion it should or should not be marked as reviewed? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Oh this... Well, we decided a while back that you should if you were willing to follow it on PROD/CSD logs, and that AfDs always should, but that was to get them out of the way of people because the 'nominated for deletion' filter didn't work. We need to have another discussion about this now that you can filter out Deletion tagged articles, and also request that the page curation tools NOT auto-review deletion tagged articles if we decide that way. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that normally when using Curation, a deletion tag automatically marks the page as patrolled so that it doesn't get patrolled again, but the tag leaves a 'no index' tag on the page. Now I'm not sure that happens when using Twinkle - aye there's the rub, we should all be using Curation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: Yes, Twinkle DOES auto-patrol articles when tagging them with CSD (not sure about AfD ect, but I assume so). I've been meaning to poll people on this since the filtering for 'nominated for deletion' was recently added, as I think we can do better by having these pages (CSD and PROD) not marked as 'reviewed'. Atsme's question just reminded me. See: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Should_we_stop_marking_articles_tagged_with_CSD_and_PROD_as_'reviewed'_now_that_we_can_filter_them_in_the_NewPagesFeed?. If the community agrees, then I'll request that the curation tool and Twinkle both be updated to not automatically mark pages as patrolled when placing CSD/PRDO tags. I can then also very simply 'unreview' all the articles currently tagged with CSD and PROD by filtering 'reviewed' and 'Nominated for Deletion' in the New Page Feed and running through them. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I'll comment at the reviewer's page. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Managing COI

Thanks for your comment. I am aware of the COI guidelines and have, all along, tried to keep those in mind. There is not a single statement in the page that is not referenced in verifiable third-party sources, both published or available on the web or both. A robot could have written this. However, it does not seem likely that the Wikipedia community or at least some individuals within it will ever accept this page on those grounds. I therefore plan to delete it. Let someone else give it a try. Pmuehlen (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Pmuehlen: Replied on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง: The notoriety criteria contain much that leaves room for subjective interpretation. Importantly, Wikipedia's arbiters should have some minimal knowledge of and experience in the fields covered in a given subject's page. This is relevant because you cite Bradv. As you are aware,Bradv famously missed some years ago that Donna Strickland, recipient of the 2018 physics Nobel Prize, was, by any measure, already notable in 1985. The explanations on his Wikipedia page demonstrate that robotic application of rules is not necessarily good. Pmuehlen (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pmuehlen: sorry to butt in, but Bradv carried out rather more checks than you yourself carried out on the draft article about Donna Strickland. From the sources that I have examined, it appears that you (Pmuehlen) did not take any steps at all to approve or move forward the draft article about Donna Strickland when it was submitted. You admit here that Strickland was "already notable in 1985", so, Pmuehlen, why were you so remiss in not making sure that a Wikipedia article about her was approved? MPS1992 (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pmuehlen: Those of us working in the field of article quality, or accepting or rejecting submissions of new articles, are generally very experienced in Wikipedia notability criteria and there is very little room for 'subjective interpretation'; Wikipedia is a big machine, it's got over 5 million articles and it's been going for 18 years which is more than enough to get it right. Reviewers don't need to have any subject knowledge in order to apply these criteria. Citing the Strickland affair and Bradv here is a straw man argument, but you can read all about it in several articles, including one from Bradv himself, in the next issue of The Signpost due to be released in the next day or two.

We understand your disappointment in your draft not being accepted for now and If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on your talk page where I had replied. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back

Glad to see you're an admin again! That's all, have a good day.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back too! Deryck C. 10:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Just saw this in the SP, adding another "welcome back" to this list. 14:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• I see you are back. I've not gotten into the details of why you dropped the bit to begin with, but hope all is well on the other side of the globe. I'm barely here myself, on the fence about, well, most everything. Hard to get emotionally invested as of late, suffering from a severe case of apathy. Anyway, hope real life is treating you well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, nice to see you around. I handed my tools in and took a break for a couple of months purely due to health and domestic issues, but the ill spirited crowd naturally made a song and dance about my ressyoping - which had nothing to do with my absence. I still won't be very active for a while. Take care yourself. Best, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I'm glad you are back too, Chris. And I can echo Dennis's comment about apathy. Everything seems like swimming upstream in the Salmon River. John from Idegon (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Signature change

I have changed the appearance of my signature. Barbara ✐✉ 10:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Hello Kudpung, how have you been? You granted me reviewer rights back in August for a 3 months period. Subject to re-evaluation. I hope I have given a (very small) contribution to the new pages review backlog, and I see that the needs are higher now. If you could evaluate those few articles I reviewed and give me feedback, that would be great! If you deem that I can continue to have the reviewing tools, I plan to continue to use them, by continuing to assist in reducing the backlog, so you can grant them for a longer period now. Best! --1l2l3k (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

CSD

F.Y.I., I see you were involved with Salina Vortex Corporation a few months ago. I just tagged Salina vortex corporation. MB 01:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

MB: already deleted by another admin. I have salted the title. This is a persistent spammer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ITM wording

I made a change at ITM that may have caused a glitch in your intended reading. Could you re-check, especially and to convince declared paid editors that despite the rules, their work is nevertheless unethical in combination with naming a declared paid editor in the same writeup? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Worcester history page

I'm having some trouble with a hostile editor who seems to have taken a dislike to my work. I'd appreciate some help with this if you have a moment. Jim Killock (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

JimKillock please provide me with a link to the diffs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, at the moment it is discussion on the talk page, revolving around whether or not to separate "Notes" and "Citations. PBS removed this distnction, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Worcestershire&oldid=868370844#Notes

I have been trying to persuade him (I assume he) that this is a bad idea, but he is being quite aggressive and demanding about reinstating his preference for having no title division.

He's also making no doubt valid points about article length but I am worried that I'm going to find my slow, detailed but hopefully relevant work building up these pages dealt with in a rather arbitrary fashion. I'd like to see a bit of patience and balance applied.

At the end of the day the History of Worcestershire page is a quite low traffic page, compared with Worcestershire for instance so I think doing things slowly is ok. Jim Killock (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the specific edit / diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Worcestershire&diff=prev&oldid=868362387 Jim Killock (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Lehrterstrasse, Kudpung.

Unfortunately Winged Blades of Godric has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

This is draftifiable stuff. Non-working references; weirdly complex (autotranslated??) sentences and unsourced paragraphs.

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

∯WBG^converse 12:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Shall I remove your Reviewer, and Autopatrolled flags now, or shall we muse over it until I have finished the article? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove the flags and I will see you at AN.∯WBG^converse 12:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? Got out of bed the wrong side this morning? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have the autopatrolled hat on and 18 hours after creation, 2 of the 5 references are null. One is reliable enough and two are to the same piece which is quasi-reliable. Vast portions are un-sourced. The single sentence over this section is what I described as weirdly complex. Notability is not very evident, till now.

These are all issues that shall be screened at NPR.

I might have tagged the article and moved on but I generally un-review autopatrols (which are not upto the mark) and let them note my concerns. And, in case you believe that my actions were egregiously bad, feel free to ask for outsider-opinion of my comments and un-review.∯WBG^converse 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

About time you wrote some articles yourself. And get your math right. I moved the article from my user space less than five hours ago. Stop stalking my edits - that's room for harassement. Go do something useful for a change, like smartening up User:Winged Blades of Godric/The rise and fall of a Wikimedian--Paid editing and Governments so that it can finally be published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, meh. If you think that I am stalking your edits, AN is that-away. At any case, five hours or whatever is not a small amount of time. ∯WBG^converse 13:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kudpung. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Op-ed

You probably have noticed I moved the content to User:Kudpung/Blog per the discussion you had with Pine. I would like to see it in issue 12 if possible. Maybe a new title: "Suppose they gave a war blog and nobody came?" ☆ Bri (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Bri - no time, no energy. I've spent a lot of time on this month's issue. Can't do any more. You're welcome do do what you like with it. FYI Pine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I will move it to Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion for issue 12 and putting my title on it. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Bri, Whatever you think best. This is going to be a meagre issue anyway, Deadline is expired in 4 hours, and you didn't extend the publishing time just to wait on more content. There's nothing from Tilman. And I certainly don't see anyone suddenly filling all the columns at the last minute. I think we all have to agree that our efforts over the past few months haven't worked out as expected despite a lot of help from Nøkkenbuer. If it were up to me I would say include the article from DiplomatTesterMan and then get the issue out tomorrow or at the latest on the 28th, otherwise the next one, if here is one, won't be out until well into the first week or even the second week of January what will all the upcoming holidays, and I really don't have time to contribute anymore. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Phra Wimondhammaphan

Hi Kudpung. Would you be willing to evaluate the suitability of Phra Wimondhammaphan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? The creator has a COI. I don't see anything on Google, but I can't understand Thai. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89, There is hardly likely to be a COI - the monk is dead. However, there is a possible COPYVIO from https://pantip.com/topic/38272842, but it looks very likely this may have been lifted from the Wikipedia article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe COI isn't the right term – the author is a disciple of the monk. That was written after the article and probably by the same person who write the article. This is far from anything I would be able to judge notability on. Do you think the monk is notable? — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 12:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Derrick Sherwin

That editor is wrong, BTW. Actually WP:V does not say such material can't be kept. If that was true, there'd be no such thing as templates existing to put in articles, noting things are unsourced! That being said. I don't know why the text is in that section, what's it's relevance is, etc. I don't mean anything negative by that, but any attempt to restore the text, should improve it so that such questions don't exist. Though that doesn't allow editors to reference non-existent rules. One is always free to improve and source text, rather than simply deleting it! Nfitz (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nfitz, as you have rightly pointed out, AlexTheWhovian's comment does not defend his action in any way. It is naturally up to him to familiarise himself with policies and guidelines, after all, he has created an admirable 176 new articles himself and Dr Who seems to be a special focus of his. I do notice from a brief review of his talk page archives that a significant number of comments appear to be about questionable removals of content, made yet more poignant by your comment here. He should at least try to adopt a more collaborative approach to his editing and not lecture me on content rules - over the years I have been instrumental in developing some of the notability requirements and content control on Wikipedia and I am always open to discussion about my own edits. (FYI: Rodericksilly). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If you've been here so long, then why as it so hard to copy the actual content, instead of the numbered reference tags? mean, [4] and [5]? That's not helpful at all. Was it a lack of desire to contribute? It's a bit worrying, I do hope you can contribute towards this great site more effectively in the future, we're always here if you need pointers. Cheers! -- Alex^TW 02:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You can drop the snark Alex, it's precicely your kind of drama mongering that puts people off wanting to collaborate at all. I've pointed out the misgivings over your own editing. (FYI Nfitz). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I enjoy collaborating! Collaborating effectively, that is, not having to clean up after other people, I guess there's a difference. -- Alex^TW 07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Alex, I said 'drop the drama' - collaborating effectively does not include snark and winding people up . Please don't post here again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Dud redirect at Webbed foot

Hi Kudpung, How are you keep, lad? I was wondering if your available, can you please remove Webbed foot. I intend to put this draft at Draft:Webbed foot into its place, assuming it passed copyvio. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

scope_creep, On taking a quick look, I'm not sure I understand this request. Kaldari has edited the article recently and it looks perfectly in order to me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It was in draft when I left a message. While I was away, and you were cogitating, somebody else stepped in, removed the old redirect and approved the draft into mainspace and Kaldari stepped in and applied some extra fixes to the article. Its all done and dusted. Excellently reasearched article it is too. scope_creep^Talk 00:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

RFA question

No, the question's not about my RFA(s), but rather about someone else's. The question is, do you think that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foreverxnature should be deleted since the user who created it (i.e. self-nominated) has no chance of passing RFA now? (I previously tried to draw admin attention to this at WT:RFA but haven't gotten a response, so I figured maybe this would be faster.) IntoThinAir (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

IntoThinAir, please see the discussion at WT:RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So you think it should be deleted? I know that's what you said at WT:RFA ("I reallise the importance of on-boarding, but if these are from kids, or just a prank, I would be inclined to delete them, and take it from there.") but of course if you thought it should be deleted, surely you would've deleted it yourself. I am aware of the discussion you're referring to, having posted in that discussion already, but I'm not sure why you're pointing me to it. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

IntoThinAir, I still say that the place to discuss this is at WT:RfA. Abandoned RfAs are really a trivial matter, and not something that I or other admins want to spend much of their their time on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

you

Have replied to your ping re Boleyn. Three things. They had already gone on a break by the time I asked them not to bi-weekly continue blanket templating an editor who is a friend of mine. [2] IE I was already defending a very prolific and informed editor who was on the verge of retiring. The irony is palatable! Third, did you read up... before saying I should be ashamed...which is a rather slanderous and smug thing to say, worse as you threw it out so flippantly. Seems to me you acted instinctively and emotionally, rather than with the facts at hand. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I had read that entire thread at Boleyn's talk page. I was moved by the comment by de facto coord of NPR, Insertcleverphrasehere's comment, and his hard work at NPR following in my footsteps as 'grandfather' of the process since I resigned from coaxing it along for many years (I was instrumental min getting the Curation system developed, and this year of achieving WP:ACTRIAL after a long battle with the WMF) , and I regard his work and collaboration on these projects as admirable - I therefore largely support his opinions. Without NPR, Wikipedia would be full of spam, adverts, attack pages, and other junk. (off topic): NPR is a far more important process than FA and demands a high engagement from its active operators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Your reply is too self serving and evasive to make sense in plain English. Want to try again because now I dont know what the hell? Hint, I am wondering if either we are about handing ready to go templates to new editors and letting them run wild unsupervised, or standing up for and clinging to long term survivors that have demonstrated form and in fact make participation in the project worthwhile. I still dont get why I should be..."ashamed", but interested, as it was a heavy duty accusation. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil, I believe my message is quite clear. Self-serving (to some extent) maybe, but I am adamant that the hard work of myself and others in protecting the integrity of Wikipedia's content to be paramount. It also therefore puts–off topic–in context the opinions we have had in the past expressed by other prolific editors - is FA not sometimes a self-serving exercise? Loosing vital maintenance editors ls not good, and I will do everything I can to support them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung that kind of wishy washy *(I believe my message is quite clear" is sub polotico speak), neither here nor there thinking is of no use to me. How do you feel about reiterating your claim that I should be..."ashamed". I suppose either put up or....If you have the courage of your convections I would like to hear them in non woolly terms. Or you could just retract and apologise. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil, was I the first to mention 'shame' and/or incivility? It's a question now of who is being rude to whom - please read my 'woolly' and 'wishy washy' comments again. I for my part have been around long enough to develop a thick skin, but IMO your comments to Boleyn were beyond the pale; notwithstanding, I note that you are also supportive of users who have been 'burned out', so I am at a loss to understand your attitude. I will not be responding again, it's 08:30 am and I have work to do in RL. FYI: Boleyn, Insertcleverphrasehere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

So you believe that templating regulars is just fine, and those who heed caution, specially me in this instance, should be "ashamed". You could have said that 3 hours ago. I found your evasiveness all this time expatriating and deeply unimpressive; I just wanted to know where I stood, no more, not get blood out of a stone, which is what this became. Given this level of muddled thinking I suspect yo are often pleading ...must get to work or pinging guys to help (coward)...when not hounding for blocks, which it seems I might have faced next if I had not challenged you directly, Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil, expatriating? "coward' is it now? Like I said, I have grown a thick skin, and I am an admin who has never blocked anyone for PA. Sorry, but I'm now in the car on my way to work - yes, I really still do a full-time job, but that is none of your business, and please give it a rest with your constant causing edit conflicts. Over and out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Jingle Bells

	Happy Holidays!
	Wishing you much joy & happiness now and every year!! Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ When does New Year’s Day come before Christmas Day? Every year! What do you call a bankrupt Santa? Saint Nickel-less. 🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻Atsme✍🏻📧 20:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Kudpung, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec18a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 14:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Kudpung, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Buone Feste!

Merry Christmas from London ...

and a New Year filled with peace and happiness!

Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Season Greetings

Merry Christmas Kudpung


Hi Kudpung, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
May next year be prosperous and joyful.
   –Scopecreep ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11.02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Kudpung!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Kudpung, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, TheSandDoctor Talk 07:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas

Redrose64 🌹 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Kudpung, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas

Nosebagbear is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Kudpung, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Hhkohh (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Kudpung!

Happy New Year!

Kudpung,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

The Signpost covers The Signpost?

What do you think we should do about the coverage that Smallbones' op-ed got in The Wall Street Journal and other media? It might come across as crass tooting our own horn (is that an English expression or American?)... but it is significant. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Bri, I was going to cover it but the WSJ is behind a firewall and there were o links to the others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a magic link through Twitter that works ... wait one ... ☆ Bri (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Here you go: [2] if you're still paywalled try incognito ☆ Bri (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Also note my roster of media coverage ☆ Bri (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Still can't get on to the WSJ. You list only re-reports on the WSJ. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bri - got it. I'll do a thingy in In The Media unless you want to. It's my guess however that it will escalate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kudpung!

Happy New Year!

Kudpung,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Hhkohh (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Kudpung!

Happy New Year!

Kudpung,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 02:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Kudpung,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope that you have an amazing 2019 . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Hello Kudpung: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

HNY

from OZ JarrahTree 10:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, JarrahTree, and you too :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Kudpung,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, and your good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, Happy New Year. I hope it is the very best. scope_creep^Talk 18:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Brands

	Hello, Kudpung. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 20:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Mail call

Dropped you a line Worm^TT(talk) 15:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Another email coming your way

I don't have permission to access a particular Wikipedia log concerning the deletion of 2254 of my edits. Are you able access the information seen here and email it to me? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 16:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Barbara, I don't quite understand what you want me to look at. These deletions all appear to be U1 from your ownn user space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A Request

Hello Kudpung! Hope you are well. I just wanted your advice on an article draft that I have created here. It is for a company that has employed Performics.Convonix (where I work) to create the article. I am familiar with the WP:Paid editing guidelines and have disclosed my interest wherever intended. I have also read the AfD that previously led to the deletion of the article, which is what brings me to you. I have already submitted the article for review but thought I might also give you a heads up since you were the last person involved there. I understand your reluctance to work with COI editors, but it would be great if you could have a look. Thank you so much. Convo Agent One (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

First off, Convo Agent One, please understand that this is the English language Wikipedia, it is not the Indian Wikipedia in English, so please quote any prices on monetary units that the majority of our readers understand. When I was living and working in India, the currency was Rupee. Secondly, please see the comments by the AfC reviewer and discuss the issues with him or her. Finally, your user name clearly identifies you with your COI and is likely to be blocked. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for your assistance. Convo Agent One (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Convo Agent One, most of the sources are superfluous. Scraping the Internet for every mention of a subject does not mean that a plethora of sources adds up to notability. Please see what is meant by WP:RS (in particular WP:NEWSORG); nobody is interested in every single 'news' web site and this again demonstrates that you are trying very hard to promote your organisation. Pepperfry may well be notable, but you are certainly not the person who should be writing about it in Wikipedia. If this draft is 'passed' at AfC , it will almost certainly come under the far more stringent due diligence of the reviewers at WP:NPR which may well also result in your account being blocked. - simply declaring a COI or paid editing does not authorize the use of the encyclopedia for earning a salary or promoting an emp[oyer's products and services. If and when it hits the press that Pepperfry has been exploiting Wikipedia, it won't look good for their reputation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC).

Thank you so much for your assistance, Kudpung. You are right, some of those references do seem redundant. I will try to make the necessary changes. As someone who is being paid by the subject, my (and my organization's) aim, while diligently following WP:COIEDIT, is to create the article ONLY if it satisfies all the necessary content guidelines, most notably WP:CORP. The subject understands the repercussions. Convo Agent One (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Convo Agent One, the main thing is not WP:CORP, it is paid advocacy. Meeting notability criteria does not guarantee the acceptance of paid promotion masquerading as encyclopedic articles. Please discuss this further with your AfC reviewer, and refer to this discussion. I also strongly advise you to read WP:ORGNAME. Many thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd & subsequent noms

For some reason I thought our Wishlist covered the issue with the curation tools fouling 2nd & subsequent AfD noms. See this incident. What are the procedures for a 2nd AfD when using the tools? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, The author of the version you just AfD'd is a blocked sock of the creator of the second iteration in 2014 so the article is a G5 and possibly a sock of the first author who created the autobio. I have therefore deleted and salted it. - and deleted and salted the draft that was lurkig around. The article is a totally unsourced BLP. There were probably other courses to take, but if had not been a G5 I would have moved it to draft and let it rot there until it comes up for G13 in 6 months, because the author is blocked anyway and I don't think anyone really cares two hoots about this non notable subject.

As regards the wishlist, there was one item somewhere on the original list I compiled over time, to have articles flagged in the feed that had already been previously deleted for some reason - although considerable due diligence is required from reviewers, even I might not have thought of delving deeper into this article's history.

Someone needs to follow up on the wishlist results and ensure that they are being addressed at Phab (and not put on a back burner by some volunteer there). Insertcleverphrasehere is our go-to person, but I understand he, like me, is not available 24/7 at the moment which leaves NPR with no one properly at the helm. OK, so it's 3am here and I'm going to get some sleep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, The procedure for subsequent noms is... use Twinkle? Honestly the tools are bugged when it comes to 2nd noms. This Phab task was included on the wishlist so should hopefully be addressed by the WMF this year. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Hi,

You have marked this question as answered and I am not sure why. Can you remove the 'answered' tag? I am sorry if this is not the formal way to request this. Here is the link in question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Electronic_Harassment_and_seeming_NPOV/cherrypicking_violations

--PaulGosar (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

PaulGosar, Because it's been answered by Guy Macon:

PaulGosar, it looks like the Wikipedia community has looked at your edits and decided that they do not meet our standards, and is about to topic ban you from the area of pseudoscience. You can argue that everyone else is wrong (and you will have a chance to ask an uninvolved admin to review any TBAN in an appeal), but right now a bunch of people who don't know each other and have never edited the page in question all came to the same conclusion. But please note that absolutely nobody called for you being blocked as often happens when we are dealing with obvious vandals and trolls. This means that the Wikipedia community thinks that you can be a productive editor and improve the encyclopedia in other areas. I personally find you to be likable when you aren't lashing out at perceived attackers and think you could be a valuable and respected editor. What can we do to convince you to not give up?

His last question is rhetorical. My personal advice is that you now take your concerns (if you still have any), to another venue - EAR is for providing editing help and not for resolving disputes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU

thank you i am joining the anti vandal squad

Flamefire987654321 (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey !!

Hi, I've noticed that the page for WP:Requests for permissions/Rollback has been listed in the admin backlog. Since you're an admin would you like to review the requests, including mine? SR4 ^☎ 15:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Hall (publisher)

I ran across this article today - created by a SPA and highly promotional, clearly someone with a COI. I toned down the language and then looked at the article history and saw a Move from a obscure dab page for a China geo location. Was this a way to get an article in that was salted or something else amiss? MB 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

MB, You are absolutely right. The dab page was usurped to create an article by moving. A dab page already exists for Daniel Hall, but I don't have time to investigate further. perhaps ask one of our current COI experts such as TonyBallioni, or make a report directly to COIN.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

TonyBallioni, I've restored Daotian to the dab page it was before the ursuption. Are you able to look into the Daniel Hall? MB 14:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for featuring Jytdog's essay "How" in the Signpost. What a good idea. Bishonen | talk 15:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC).

GOCE 2018 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2018 Annual Report Our 2018 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress; Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2019. – Your project coordinators: Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.
Message added 14:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

∯WBG^converse 14:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Is The Signpost more like Associated Press, or more like Slate?

I'd like to put out a signed "From the editors" in February stating our editorial policy on POV in News and notes and other sections that some readers appear to expect as "straight" reporting (even Gallery??!). As far as I'm concerned that's not our policy, nor is it an engaging writing style for a publication like this one. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)