User talk:Kudpung/Archive Apr 2015

Will you go out on a limb if it looks strong enough?

Hello Kudpung, I am keenly interested in knowing your opinion; and willing to abide by it as well. I would like to know if you believe I could serve Wikipedia as an administrator; more importantly: if you would endorse my candidacy as a co-nominator? Although I do not see this as an RfA criterion of yours, I am certain I've seen you comment before that you would not support a candidate who has had four or more unsuccessful RfAs. Amongst my mistakes on Wikipedia, four unsuccessful RfAs is a sad fact which obviously looms rather large. I only hope that I've made sufficient amends that you would be willing to waive this bright-line provision. I am prepared to accept a more candid response, if the truth is less flattering than what my hopes have imagined. Please ask me to clarify any questions that my editing history does not adequately portray, or that this request failed to expound. Thank you for considering this request.--John Cline (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, just happened to pass by and saw this. I will give you two quick tips. Firstly, self-nomination is not advisable if you had a few previous RfAs. Nominators in RfAs are character referees of sorts. Secondly and more importantly, you must address this main (if not sole) issue in your RfA: What have I done since to address the issues raised in my previous RfAs? Good luck, - Mailer Diablo 21:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi John Cline. From the moment you posted your message above I have spent considerable time reviewing both your history and my own performance as a RfA !voter and nominator, and slept a night on it. I believe you have addressed all the issues brought up in your previous RfAs but four attempts with such overwhelming oppose each time give me pause. Not so much about your suitability for adminship but for how your RfA might turn out again even some two years further down the line. The decision is yours if you wish to go through that process again, but in order for it to have even a faint chance of success, you should be looking at a nomination and a co nomination from users who are known to have a positive impact on Wikipedia and its policies. Many people think I'm one of those but in reality I'm just a busy admin (most of the time) and one who gets around the world to meet ups and conferences and does a lot of off-Wiki work. I therefore cannot find any compelling reasons to break with my principles and nominate or co-nominate a 4th (or more) RfA, but if you do choose to go ahead, I might well relax my rule a tiny bit and you might find me on the side of the supporters. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi John. How are things? :) Sorry to butt in. Consider remedying the matter of selective talk page archiving and the absence of a link to your talk archives. Those could draw opposes. Just a thought. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all who added a reply to this thread. I appreciate the advice and will use it to better myself where I can. I apologize Kudpung, for not responding to your reply right away. Initially, it was my plan to sleep on the matter before responding, as you had done, to give my reply the benefit of adequate forethought. Wouldn't you know that real life would step in and consume my attention, distracting me away from Wikipedia at a time when I should have been available to respond. I appreciate that you invested your time to review my contributions and then post such a thoughtful reply. All things considered, I doubt I will pursue RfA further. I do not wish to be a divisive force on Wikipedia, and believe a 5th RfA could only be seen to belie that desire. Thank you once again; I'll now return to the calls of real life.--John Cline (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

AFC reviewer

Hi Kudpung, you mentioned your willingness to help identify and/or mentor new AFC reviewers once upon a time. Do you think this user's reviews warrant discussion? and if so, would you be willing to offer them your wisdom? It falls into a sort of gray area where I think the acceptance rate is too high (since I've only ever accepted around 20 articles in my time as reviewer) but I'm not sure if there's anything outright horrible and bad, although you might want to take a look at their talk page, where primefac brought to their attention one article that he sent back to draftspace.

Thanks for your help, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 03:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kikichugirl. My stance on this may sound a bit odd but if you think about it, it should become fairly clear. Overall, AfC is in a mess but the regulars bravely refuse to admit that any change or improvement is warranted. After a long struggle, I got qualifications introduced for reviewers and those quals presuppose that the editor has suffuicient knowledge of policies and guidelines to be able to review AfC submissions. However, in reality AfC is little more than a social turntable of reviewers' requests for help. Ironically NPP is a far more important function but neither does it insist upon any minumum experience nor does it have this incessant chit-chat about what to do. IMO, and I believe DGG shares my opinion, if a reviewer doesn't know what to do or is getting it wrong, mentorship is not the solution; just like becoming an admin, for example, you've either accumulated sufficient experience for the job or you haven't, so inspite of meeting the basic '500 edit' criterion, based on the other criteria the reviewer should simply stop reviewing until they have found out for themselves how to do it. AfC is far too streched to offer mentoring - indeed, the school page I created for them was scrapped by someone already. The best thing for AfC is to stop talking about it and merge the whole thing to NPP. Then there might be some argument for a training programme because at the end of the day, the two processes are fundamentally identical. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. So, do you think this particular user is qualified to become an AFC reviewer, or should I begin to discuss their qualifications/skills on their talk page? I feel as if some of the edits/accepts they made do not reflect the quality of articles required of AfC articles to survive an AFD. I wish we could merge AFC and NPP, since NPP is so widely ignored, but in the meantime, I'll just keep reviewing AFCs - the newbies won't wait... — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 04:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Kikichugirl, I will be following up. Besides occasional real goofs, which any of us can do, he does't know promotionalism when he sees it. AfC is supposed to be our first line of defense for that. If not, it's useless. I'm gradually shifting to AfD, in any case, to remove the embedded promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Kikichugirl, DGG, the reason this editor gets things wrong is either that they are not a native English speaker, or they suffer from an involuntary language disorder (eg dyslexia). Approach with care and as supportive as possible because they have been around a very long time and are a very keen and enthusiastic Wikipedian. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the alert; I will be gentle. But that doesn't seem to be the difficulty here, unless the language skills problem is causing him to not actually tread the drafts. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your message on my discussion page

Hello. First of all, I have the right to remove anything what does not match my interest, from my talk page and I can hardly remember when it was the first time when I was really warned. The reason why there are warnings on the history of my talk page is because that was all a misunderstanding, caused by the user named Joseph somewhat. He was on the wrong side with his warnings and he appologized and we became friends. So there are no real warnings on my talk page. Samhan Dobo (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A request

Hi Kudpung,

On Everymorning's RfA, you mentioned concerns about the candidate's knowledge of policies. Since you have likely researched Everymorning's history much more thoroughly than I have (you have more time to do that, after all), could you provide some examples? There's just something about the candidate that makes me uneasy, but like FreeRangeFrog, I can't exactly pinpoint it. --Biblioworm 02:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm, I've been watching over Everymorning ever since he first started editing as Jinkinson. He keeps also asking me for advice which demonstrates that he is still not sufficiently clear on some things. Other voters have pointed out specific items, while like you I have more of a gut feeling. My main concern is the extremely high number of edits at an almost impossible cadence. That kind of editing even for an experienced user is going to invite errors. A mature sense of judgement also only comes with age and at this user's age, unless he is a child prodigy, will need a few years more before reaching adulthood by any country's standards. We have had some excellent admins in the past, I believe the youngest was 12 until something went wrong. It's not a risk I'm likely to support but that doesn't make me the child hater that some Wikichildren have stamped me with. I worked with children for 30 years. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

I don't see anything wrong with asking for advice, but if he frequently asks for advice on relatively simple things, that's different. The problem here is not that the candidate is 12 years old (even though I try to judge candidate solely based on their contributions, I must admit that I would be just a bit apprehensive about supporting someone that young...), but is 20 years old, which makes him a legal adult in the United States and several other nations. However, the high edit counts and the rushed self-nomination do seem to be signs of a person who desperately wants to be admin. I can understand such an attitude in new users who don't understand what adminship is, but definitely not in a user who has made almost 50,000 edits and has edited for over two years. --Biblioworm 15:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot in common

I stumbled across your user page, and was amazed how much we have in common! My girlfriend is from Udon Thani (although I currently live in BKK), I'm currently in the wine business, I went to British boarding school (and apparently share similar sentiments!), I play the piano and I do also share a passion for Wikipedia (although I am only beginning to rekindle it after a long hiatus). I'm an awful lot younger than you, but we should meet up one of these days! เจอกันอาทิตย์หน้านะเจอกัน บายบาย --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 03:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jay-Sebastos - yes we should! Though I'm rarely in BKK, but if you're up this way I would certainly make it into town. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Demether

I wasn't active on the wiki in past few months, so I didn't see the page was nominated for the SD. Would you mind telling me why was it nominated and subsequently deleted? Regards, PrimEviL 06:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

PrimeEvil, it was not speedy deleted but deleted per: 'Expired PROD, concern was: Fails to meet criteria at WP:BAND'. You are welcome to recreate the article but it must meet our criteria and be adequately referenced to reliable, independent , 3rd party sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There were 3rd party sources referencing the information on the page. The band meets the criteria at WP:BAND, specifically points 1, 5, 11. Regards, PrimEviL 19:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi Mr, Kudpung, I'm reaching out to see if you can help me in adding an article about economics without violating the complex policies. Can you, please, help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd.dr.candidate (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps the best thing to do would be to create the article first in your usr space or as a draft and then ask someone to review ir for you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

• Op-ed: We are drowning in promotional artspam

• News and notes: Advancement department to be created at the Foundation, milestone fixes

• In the media: Wikipedia on 60 Minutes, Kickstarter, and in the classroom

• Traffic report: Resurrection week

• Featured content: Partisan arrangements, dodgy dollars, a mysterious union of strings, and a hole that became a monument

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Christianity

• Arbitration report: New Functionary appointments

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Your advice on the George de Menil article

Hello Kudpung,

Thanks for taking the time to review my article on George de Menil. I have added references to all the areas where you indicated that references were needed. Could you have a look and let me know if it's acceptable for publication now?

I should note that I originally created this article under the name Georges de Menil back in December 2013, but deleted it because there was a discrepancy over how to spell his name. That has been resolved with the American spelling of George being the right one. Any overlap with that original material is intentional, as it was my own writing.

Hi. Please contact the deleting admin, FreeRangeFrog. I've had very little to do with this article apart from tagging it for sources over a year ago. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2015

Hi Kudpung. Unfortunately, I was turned down for the Wikimania scholarship (It was quite competitive; I'm told out of 600 applications, only about 4-5 were given to applicants from North America). While I am investigating into other options, I'm not confident I'll be able to attend Wikimania this year, even if my presentation is approved. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT, thank you for letting me know. It is also unlikely that I will be attending this year's conference. Perhaps next year, when it will only be 9,000 km away.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

• News and notes: Erik Möller leaving Foundation; annual plan grants under community review

• In the media: Saving Wikipedia; Internet regulation; Thoreau quote hoax

• Blog: Single-User Login provides access to all wikis

• Traffic report: Furious domination

• Featured content: Au-delà de les Alpes, le chien lit de Sainte Bernard. Sous les pavés, les trimes d'argent! Mes enfants, suivez-moi!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing a Biography: The Marianne Moore Society requests advice!

Dear Kudpung,

I am writing on behalf of the Marianne Moore Society, an international group of scholars and poets dedicated to the study of this American poet. We need help revising her Wikipeda article. One biographer/scholar (Willmetta, the handle of Patricia Willis, who was the curator of the Rosenbach Musuem, where Moore's archive is), added links and other material some years ago, but lost heart when some of her additions were redacted. Now, Moore's latest biographer and many others would like to see her article expanded and updated. As one of the very few Wikiliterate, if nearly geriatric, members of the bunch, I've promised to do what I can, suggesting that if they'll send me stuff, I'll drop it in, and we'll just have to wait and see if it stays there.

It would be a great pleasure to work with you when and if we hit more glitches: I truly enjoyed reading your User page (wow!). If you have some time to donate to my colleagues and me, we would be so grateful. Spring has just landed here in Hudson, NY: hope this note finds you well, and I look forward to hearing from you.

All best, Rosanne Wasserman (Zanniew) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanniew (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please provide me with some links to the page(s) you wish to create/improve. Unfortunately my time is too short for me to be able to search for and locate them myself. I'll then happily see what I can do. Please remember also to sign your posts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_MooremZanniew (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ihave I have read through the article and made two minor edits, one of which is a request for a source. I have also checked out the editing history. I can't find anything particularly egregious and in fact the article appears to be particularly well written. You may wish to run some snippets of text through Google to ensure that none of the text has beern lifted verbatim from other sources without attribution. Otherwise, do keep up the good work. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ISE International School Wikipedia Page

Hi Kudpung:

Thank you for responding to my post concerning our school's Wikipedia page!

Kudpung, I would like to use this page for our school as a project for my High School Computers Class in order to teach about Wikipedia. I have 12 students in the course and meet with them again Tuesday morning, the 21st, after Songkran.

In my Sandbox I have created a page for the school with some basic headings. Do you have access?

From what I know and have read about Wikipedia, I see my challenge as a facilitator/teacher to make sure they don't just cut and paste material from the school website. The information needs to be objective as possible. Also, as much as possible to cite their sources and references with links.

On Tuesday morning I plan to give each student, or have them in teams work on research for the different headings. They already have logins as I did a lesson on editing a page.

Question-----should I keep the page in the Sandbox for a bit longer, or would it be OK to post now.

P/S Is this the correct forum to ask about Isan? Isan is a fascinating place. My Thai language is limited, but I can speak limited Khmer. There is a dialect known as Khmer Surin. From your history I see your are quite adept at languages. Do you know of any areas in Isan particularly where Khmer is spoken?

Jpahls (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)jpahls

Hi Jpahls, I have moved your sandbox draft to Draft:ISE International School. Please let your students know. Please be sure that they only edit using their own accounts. They should use the draft page's talk page for any discussion. When you feel the article is complete, ask me to review it and if it's OK i'll move it to maispace.

Khmer is spoken mainly around southeastern Isan (eg Ubon Ratchathani, Surin, and Buriram provinces, etc), but up here we all speak a dialect of Lao which is mutually understandable with Thai, a bit like Spanish and Portuguese but with a very slightly different script. Khmer is of course a very different language and script. I never got round to learning it - no need really. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)f

Some ideas

I came late to the discussion at WP:VPR on discouraging biting, but it brought some old ideas to the top of my mind. See WP:VPR#Another take on why newbies find Wikipedia unfriendly. I'd be interested in your comments. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

• Special report: Sony emails reveal corporate practices and undisclosed advocacy editing

• In the media: UK political editing; hoaxes; net neutrality

• News and notes: Call for candidates as the movement approaches the Wikimedia Board elections

• In focus: 2015 Wikimedia Foundation election preparations underway

• Featured content: Vanguard on guard

• Traffic report: A harvest of couch potatoes

• Gallery: The bitter end

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Coolidon

Based on this comment [1] would you mind revoking talkpage access? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

• Wikimania: Choice of small village for Wikimania 2016 ruffles feathers

• News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments evaluation sees diminishing returns and increasing cost

• In the media: Scottish MEP blocked for edit warring; ranking articles by importance

• Featured content: Another day, another dollar

• Traffic report: Bruce, Nessie, and genocide

• Recent research: Military history, cricket, and Australia targeted in Wikipedia articles' popularity vs. quality; how copyright damages economy

• Technology report: VisualEditor and MediaWiki updates

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)