This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Kudpung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please sign your message.
Archives
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 22:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Good article reassessment[edit]

Hi, since we interacted on the article Franz Kurowski and Clean Wehrmacht, where you provided translations, I'm reaching out to you for an opinion. It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The reassessment raises the questions of sourcing; neutrality; and level of detail present in the article. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz. I've seen you deeply involved in the discussions around Wikipedia policies, and I would value your opinion on this matter.

I would welcome input or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would appreciate any feedback you could share. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC

Hi K.e.coffman. I'll look into this as soon as I get home to Thailand from Wikimania in Italy. probably in about 48 hours or so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Right, K.e.coffman, well here goes, bearing in mind that MilHist is absolutely not my subject area and I won't participate in the talk page discussion but you are welcome to cite my comments or link to this post. Also, editors should bear in mind that GA is not FA, tolerance is needed where sources may be difficult or impossible to find, and that this article is not subject to the rules of BLP. Somehow a mention should preferably be built into to the article that much of the information relies on a single source (e.g. 'according to Röll...) . BTW, that source may be a paid-for vanity publication and it would be of interest for a Wikipedia editor fluent in German (as I am for example) to obtain a copy and read it).
  • The lede is overly detailed - a lot of it is material for the article body.
  • Military operations of low-level units are described in excessive detail unless he received military decoration for his actions in these operations or campaigns.There is often a tendency on Wikipedia to provide excessive detail in many kinds of articles. Such detail is beyond the requirement of encyclopedic entries whose main objective is to direct the reader to more detailed externally available information rather than excessively reproducing (paraphrasing, etc) that information.
  • A lot of fine detail such as, just for example,but not only, the type of war wounds, their hopitalisations, and treatment, etc, are excessive.
  • A lot of the detail is unnecessary because it does not directly relate to Strachwitz and some paragraphs could be significantly reduced such as, for example:

On 30 January 1933, the Nazi Party, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, came to power and began to rearm Germany. The Heer (Germany Army) was increased and modernized with a strong focus on the Panzer (tank) force. Personnel were recruited from the cavalry. In October 1935 Panzer-Regiment 2 was created and was subordinated to the 1st Panzer Division, at the time under command of General Maximilian von Weichs. The soldiers of the I. Abteilung (1st Battalion) came from Saxony and Thuringia, the II. Abteilung (2nd Battalion) was made up from soldiers from Silesia. Strachwitz, who had served as an officer of the reserves in Reiter-Regiment 7 (7th Cavalry Regiment) in Breslau, had asked to be transferred to the Panzer force and, in May 1936, participated in his first manoeuvre on the training ground at Ohrdruf, followed by an exercise of live firing on the gunnery training ground at Putlos—today in the administrative district of Oldenburg-Land—near the Baltic Sea. A year later, from July to August 1937, he participated in a second reserve training exercise on the Silesian training grounds at Neuhammer—present-day Świętoszów.[23]

to:

In 1933 the Nazi administration began to rearm Germany and the army was increased and reorganised with a focus on tank warfare. Strachwitz, who had served in Reiter-Regiment 7 (7th Cavalry Regiment) had asked to be transferred to the Panzer force and in 1936 participated in his first manoeuvre, followed by gunnery training at Putlos (today Oldenburg-Land). In 1937 he participated in further training at Neuhammer (present-day Świętoszów.)

  • The word Schloss in German, just as château in French, can mean anything from a country house, manor or mansion ,through stately home, and palace, to a fortified castle. Usually associated with aristocracy of some kind but may also refer to the residence of large land owners.
To conclude, I personally believe that with consideration to the above points, the article could easily retain (or regain) its GA status. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Great, thank you very much! I'm not sure if you are volunteering to procure and read the work by Röll, but that would be an interesting exercise. Flechsig Verlag is the same published that issued multiple works by Franz Kurowski, so I'd expect it to be the similar militaria literature genre. In any case, thanks for the feedback and I hope that the conference was productive. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Lol, no! I'm not volunteering to get and read a copy of Röll if it's the kind of stuff published by Flechsig, but we do have a lot of keen native or near-native speakers who might have time and who might appreciate the challenge and who could take a neutral, dispassionate view. You could try Gerda, Jo-Jo Eumerus, or perhaps Qweedsa.
The conference was OKish. A lot smaller than we are used to for a Wikimania. It was an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas with the Germans about RfA and NPP reforms and make some concrete progress after all these years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Il Post[edit]

Here is a stub to get you started!

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC).

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Σσς(Sigma) 07:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

How'd it go?[edit]

How was WM? Any news on the NPP front?

BTW, this week another example of the need for more robust control came up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vinodtiwari2608. VQuakr (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

PAGE DELETED[edit]

WHY HAS MY PAGE BEEN DELETED!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.34.85 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you have only edited one page, and that was Sati Kazanova. The edits have been removed because they conflict with our BLP policy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Replied[edit]

Hi Kudpung, I replied, and am pinging per request, although you should have received a cross-wiki notification for it (if you haven't turned off the defaults). Cheers. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Flagged Page[edit]

Hello, I'm not sure that I'm actually talking to a human instead of a robot, as it is 2am for you and the turn over time for my page that I posted was almost instant.

I'm trying to create a page for an art festival, a non-profit in New Mexico. I have not had the total time to complete adding sources and links to relevant articles yet. Please let my page stay. I dispute any claims that the page is inappropriate.

the page in question is Currents New Media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HKramm (talkcontribs) 18:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi HKramm. New Page Patrols are never done by bots. It may be 2 am for me here in Asia but editors are free to choose the time they prefer to work.
I don't doubt for a moment that you created this article in good faith, but we do have some strict rules about what we accept. Wikipedia articles must not be promotional, and they must be written in your own words - not copied verbatim fron other web sites. The article has now been reviewed again by a second admin who agreed that it should be deleted. PLease check out these links to understand why the article was deleted. WP:G11, WP:G12(Source URL: https://currentsnewmedia.org/about-us/). There is more information in the welcome message on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
If you wish to start a new article that is in compliance with our criteria, I suggest you start it in your sandbox first and then WP:move it to mainspace when there is no danger of it being deleted again You can always ask me or another experienced editor to check it over for you before you do so.
Please remember to sign your posts.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for reviewing my first page! WestBravo (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPPROD[edit]

Hi, May I ask what specifically prompted you to leave this message on my talk page? Thanks! GSMR (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi GSMR. BLPs are a sensitive issue and we are very strict about them needing to be sourced. Just tagging for basic maintenance issues isn't enough - if they are not sourced they will be deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I'll do that in the future. I've been hesitant about tagging new pages as requiring deletion right away just based on previous messages on my talk page but if that's the policy then I'll do that from now on. GSMR (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
GSMR, The idea with WP:BLPPROD is to catch the user while they are still online. You can tag for BLPPROD immediately. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

How to fix this[edit]

How do you recommend fixing the page? Plenty of other companies have Wikipedia pages without being promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzisman (talkcontribs) 20:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tzisman. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that your organisation will have much in the way of reliable, independent, 3rd party sources written about them that establish its importance. Such sources would be, for example, in=depth mainstream articles in the printed press or TV documentaries about its work. See WP:Reliable sources. Secondly, no web content can be taken and used verbatim in a Wikipedia article whoever owns the original See Copyright Violations. Finally, and most importantly, you should not be writing about yourselves; it is almost impossible to remain neutral and dispassionate when writing about one's self. Editors who write about themselves or about the organisations they work for are often blocked from editing the Wikipedia -see Conflict of Interest --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions?[edit]

Greetings Kudpung,

Thanks for your note. Any suggestion for improving the page? As you can see by my other edits, it is in reference to the Wikipedia page for GEMAP, which I've updated as well with sources. Thebridgetonowhere (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thebridgetonowhere. Firstly, that GEMAP sill exists is probably due to the fact that it has slipped through our net as unfortunately many promotional pages do (see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is a misunderstanding that a plethora of sources adds up to notability. However, an article must demonstrate significance and importance of the sublect. All organisations, whether commercial or non-profit, must meet our criteria at WP:ORG; this article reads like a routine company profile. Finally, if you are even remotely conneted with this organisation, you must declare your WP:Conflict of Interest. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. What can I do if I dont want my page to be deleted? What information must contain? Im new and I really dont know what to do and how to edit. I just want to create a page about that artist Kassy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassie200490 (talkcontribs) 12:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

hi kudpung i hav a complain about my page deletion "mahamandleshwar avdhoot baba aurn giri ji"

Well you are right I have copied some things from his website but those are the things necessary to make this article perfect. I want people to know everything about him. That is why I written this article. He is a religious guru and doing great work for environment protection & Girl care program I’m very fond of his work. This should be on Wiki with the same content.

and as i have read in wiki decleration of consent of all enquiries page, should i collect all necessary formalities n mail it to the assigned mail id to make the page live???

waiting for your reply, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpita lodha jain (talkcontribs) 13:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:VR Coaster (ride attraction)[edit]

The lede sentence needs to be put into standard style. Other than that, I would accept. (I don't know what the issue is about the previous reviewer.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rob, See this. It looks as if DGG beat me to it - I wasn't actually fully aware of the extent of the problem. I think the regular AfC team should keep an eye on new enrollments at the Helper SCript page when a user has 50only 2 mainspace edits. Personally, I think he thought he was reviewing in good faith, but he has to stop for a while, and most importantly, he needs to be encouraged to do his own clean up. Things will probably chang for the better when AfC & NPP get merged. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I haven't read anything about merging of AFC and NPP. I am not sure how good an idea that is. Where is it being discussed? We also have another new AFC reviewer who goes fast and makes mistakes. That explains why the backlog has dropped down. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

smitmun page.[edit]

Hey! I have updated everything with citations and the page has a national/international importance for this society please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzwallis (talkcontribs) 01:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please delete[edit]

Can you please delete this userbox of mine? I don't want to stay this userbox in my page anymore. Thank you. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 05:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I do appreciate your help. :) Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 06:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

New user[edit]

This user page also contains promotional contents. Please check it once. Thanks—Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 13:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


User:Billy Hathorn[edit]

In case you are interested, used a bit of sleuthing to uncover three socks recently (User:E. R. Softwood User:Freda Martial, User:Hot Furnace), I'm sure there are more. OhNoitsJamie Talk

User:Philipandrew2[edit]

Hi Kudpung, can you please check Philipandrew2's contributions? I saw his talk page that he awarded such barnstars and medals without any proof that he had made good edits here in WP as it seems that this is unfair to everyone here in WP. And I also think that giving him too much barnstars / medals is too much, hence RioHondo filed another case of sockpuppetry for him. Thanks for addressing this matter. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 23:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

PERM discussion[edit]

Continuing the discussion at User talk:MusikAnimal under the heading "WP:PERM":

It's more an issue of division of labor than any great difficulty in learning how to quickly but thoroughly process requests for the other user rights. My typical areas, WP:TFD and WP:CFD, run frequent backlogs. The latter, which is by far the higher volume of the two, requires admins to clear it due to the full protection of WP:CFD/W. Not to mention the few sockmasters I track, the occasional RFPP requests I process, and the variety of non-admin work I do. Not enough hours in the day to take on anything new, I'm afraid, and I can't imagine there ever will be unless we get an influx of new admins in those areas. I can think of several editors who would make good admins, but with RfA as it is, I can't justify encouraging any of them to go for it. My successful RfA has greatly reduced my enthusiasm for the project (and consequently my overall activity). It's too much of a risk to throw any of our existing good editors to the dogs and hope they stick around afterwards. ~ Rob13Talk 19:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Tell me about it! I've been in the vanguard of RfA reform for 7 years. I know the problems, Rob. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I definitely know you do. It hardly takes someone with your experience with RfA reform to notice it, though - anyone with half a brain can take a quick glance and realize that it isn't working. It took me only a couple months to realize we needed to do something about it, but my own idea was quickly shot down as all the others have been. I do agree with you that the voters are the problem, but the unreasonable voters form a sizable faction. Even when they don't agree with each other's rationales, they're quick to defend each other to preserve their own right to absurdity. My latest idea is to start quoting the successful admins who specific voters have opposed on similarly absurd grounds back at the voters and ask them to defend their criteria in light of their demonstrably incorrect judgement, but I imagine that won't be well-received. At this point, I just don't believe RfA reform (or RfA voter reform) is possible within this community. It will take the WMF to fix it, and we'll continue to run horrendous backlogs until they do. ~ Rob13Talk 19:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Rob, we parsed a few thousand voter behaviour patterns way back at WP:RFA2011 and the same conclusions are still true today. The WMF will not do anything, RfA is a local problem that is not within their mandate. It's up to us to do something about it but perennial suggestions for unbundling the admin tools are not the way way to go. Analogy: would you simply give a driver's licence to all children over 12 in order to prevent accidents by illegally joy-riding teenagers? (note also that in most countries o the world outside the USA, the legal age to drive a car is 18). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd love to see actual reform happen and will always support reform efforts which don't have a potential for active damage, but I just have no faith it will ever be done. The WMF will step in when the lack of admins creates legal issues for the Foundation. When we can't rapidly delete attack pages or copyright infringement, they won't be able to sit by and do nothing. That's where we're rapidly heading. We're still relying disproportionately on the remaining survivors from the admin "bubble" of 2005–2007 to run the day-to-day of the project. How much longer can we expect admins to last? Let's say the "average" admin has a "life" of 5 years of admin activity. If that's the case, then we're heading toward 100 active admins on average if we assume we're getting 20 new admins per year. We're on track for 13–14 admins this year. If that's the new normal, we'd be tracking toward 70 active admins. I won't even consider whether the downward trend from last year to this year might continue; it's too depressing. Legal concerns will eventually force the WMF to step in if nothing changes. ~ Rob13Talk 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rob, WSC maintains the stats and is better qualified than me to say when things are likely to meet melt-down, but deleting pages flagged for CSD is not a backlog. AFAICS, the backlog areas are not due to a lack of admins but more due to the fact that most admins are not interested in those areas or are not prapred to wade through the long discussions already built up by contributions from the peanut gallery. I know, because I'm guilty of this myself. Most RfC do not require closure by an admin unless particularly specified for some reason. AIV gets done with extraordinary speed - in fact by the time I have navigated to a case and checked the facts, another admin has already blocked the user.
Since the watershed year of 2007, a lot of new bots and edit filters have been made that reduce the load on admins. I don't think we're heading for a crisis any aime soon. Areas where admin, IMO could and should be more active is chasing inexperienced users away from NPP and AfC, but this is something that needs judgement and perceived 'authority' rather than tools - I think DGG would agree with me here. The two things that would greatly reduce the need for admin work (oand reduce the attempts by inexperienced users do serious maintenance tasks) would be to get the WMF to build the proper landing page they promised in 2012, and for us to get a consensus for a user right for NPP. I have a meeting with the Foundation this week to discuss these issues.
As-is, we have FfD discussions relating to works that aren't legally allowed to be hosted on the project going back to April 23. Some could argue we're already struggling to meet our legal obligations to speedily remove infringing content once notified that it may be infringing. Yes, this is largely because admins don't have any interest in wading into those discussions because it isn't fun or glamorous. That doesn't change the existence of the backlog. I know I'm being fairly pessimistic. I just don't see any real avenues to a solution from a community with large factions resistant to any change. I'll be overjoyed if I'm wrong. ~ Rob13Talk 01:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand your pessimism Rob, really I do, but none of the changes that have been proposed address the underlying issues - in fact recent changes to RfA policy while attempting to make it easier to become an admin, have brought with them new problems that have largely negated their effect. Unbundling admin tools is still probably not going to make those problem area backlogs any more interesting to users who would be allowed to close them. While we urgently need to control who is patrolling new pages, creating additional bureaucracy at admin level is probably not the best remedy to the inappropriate manner in which some participants make their votes on RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Become an admin[edit]

Hi,

I would like to become an admin for the page of mma fighter 'Luke Rockhold'. I have been editing his page for sometime now. How can I become an admin and can I be please be nominated for the same.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7leumas (talkcontribs) 17:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi 7leumas. Admin is a very complex job and we don't have admins for individual pages. Please read WP:ADMIN and all the pages it links to. You will probably be ready for adminship in around 5 years time if you make about 2,000 correct edits a year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

a bit confused by your vague comment.[edit]

but i responded here, and would be happy to hear your worries in more constructive detail. Earflaps (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Issues of Namrata Sapkota Article[edit]

Dear Kudpung, As you have given before Deletion Tag on this Article Namrata Sapkota i am really sorry before there is some Dead Link but now i have already been edited. So please review once

Thanks Adam Smith (talkcontribs)AdamSmith12 13:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)