User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug 2014

Some stroopwafels for you!

Don't worry, I do get it. Stubs need sources too. I just went to the gym yesterday for a swim because of the heat. Thanks for your expansion of the Joseph Riegel article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:WT:RfA

Hmm. Read your comments. I know RfA is in a better state now. But nowadays the trend for AfD participation is much higher than it was at that time during 2006-2007 when Moonriddengirl etc became admin. Why AfD is so needed?? When some of those 1407 admin haven't ever done administrative works in AfD or CSD areas. No editor is ever perfect, and voters just dig a very simple issue and make huge mountains of it when the editor is running for RfA. When I joined, I have dreamt that I will become an admin someday like Dennis, Drmies, you etc. But now the dream has become a nightmare. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's only a nightmare if you are not sufficiently prepared and if you have not spent hours reading up on all the advice - most of which I wrote and has become the staple reading diet for candidates. FWIW, if you,re scared to run for adminship, you should take a look at my own RfA. I still passed with flying colours despite the lies and abuse I got from some admin who has, thankfully, since been desysoped and the truly silly comments of some others. Once you get the bit you're going to need an even thicker skin, unless of course you want to work in the background just doing routine deletes of PRODS as many do. We need more admins like me and Dennis Brown and a tiny handful of others who are prepared to stick their necks out in contentious and controversial issues - someone has to do the dirty work, and if a user can.t face up to that kind of admin work, they are better staying in the nevertheless noble ranks of prolific content writers and FA reviewers, etc. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I have read almost all of your essays, And yes they all were awesome, thanks for creating them. I have also been following your criteria for admins not because I want to become an admin someday but I think every user wanted to become a good contributor should follow those. I have seen both your and Dennis's RfA. Hmm. I know every successful RfA has some opposes except for Anne Delong's. If I ever become an admin I would like to help on such contentious areas. Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't make you a more valuable Wikipedian, nor a better editor or person. If anything, it guarantees you will have less time to just write. If you aren't prepared to spend a good deal of your time here being a punching bag, adminship isn't right for you. RFA is just the first taste for many candidates. Really, if you aren't prepared to get your nose bloodied from time to time, and be served up a slice of humble pie on a regular basis, it isn't for you. When it comes to adding value to Wikipedia, one good writer is worth more than 10 average admin, remember that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're correct Dennis. Becoming an admin is not something my aim was nor it is. I have a mixed interest I have created not many but 13+ articles, 3 DYKs, helped improve 1 article to meet GA. Have been a vandal fighter, quite active in AfD, Created templates etc. my contributions are not because I read essays of how to become an admin and have special interest of becoming an admin but want help built encyclopedia. You guys do a great job, Dennis, Kudpung. And really you both are precious diamonds of Wikipedia, salute you both. I think becoming a good editor is better than being an admin. But if in future someone ask me to run for adminship, I might say yes. But now I don't have interest nor I'm totally qualified yet. Anyway, I was in vacation. You know real life. Thanks again, both of you. Good day & Happy editing! Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious diamonds, eh? Dunno about that; rough diamonds maybe, but thank you for the kind words :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I love this song, it should be your theme song Kudpung: [1] Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Une étoile pour vous !

	L’étoile des idées brillantes
	C'est vraiment bien fait et utile :) Emperor Jarjarkine (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

• Book review: Knowledge or unreality?

• Recent research: Shifting values in the paid content debate

• News and notes: How many more hoaxes will Wikipedia find?

• Wikimedia in education: Success in Egypt and the Arab World

• Traffic report: Doom and gloom vs. the power of Reddit

• Featured content: Skeletons and Skeltons

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Please help me by opening this link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harshita_Gaur_2014-06-16_13-32.jpg and by checking this image.I think that this is copyrighted work and should be removed from Wikipedia.I am not sure so as administrator i asked you for your help.Thanks.--Param Mudgal (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not work at Commons. Please contact an admin there. Kudpung.90.216.253.138 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay.. Thanks for the help.Can you suggest the user name of any administrator there?? It will be of great help to me. --Param Mudgal (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can ask Eleassar. He is an admin there. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) (In absense of Kudpung) 19:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.--Param Mudgal (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone you might like to meet

Hi, did you make it to London or not? I just had a brief conversation with a user I had helped years ago. He mentioned he is in Bangkok. I knew you were in Thailand. Looks like you aren't that close, but checking out your user page, I learned more about your interests. While the list didn't literally include pantomime, I thought it might be close enough for you to have some interest. Beebuk has not just contributed to Wikipedia on the subject, he is a serious scholar of the subject, with at least one book. As you can see, he is a major contributor to Pierrot and related topics. He posted a short note to my talk page; as you can see from his talk page, he and I were collaborating, sort of, about four years ago.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks fore the heads up - I'll be getting in touch. Wikimania was hard but thoroughly enjoyable work. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at StevenD99's talk page.
Message added 20:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StevenD99 20:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at my RfA

Hi Kudpung, I'm posting here as I'm not sure of the propriety of a candidate commenting on their own RfA or participating in the discussion of !votes. I don't understand why you believe I should be responsible for fixing the problems at Rajendra Chaudhary (Rajasthan politician). I am merely the AfC reviewer that passed the draft into mainspace - because it did (and still does) comply with the relevant minimum standard - it has a few mainstream press sources that do support the subject's claim to notability. I did not create the article, nor am I particularly interested in the topic, so why should it count against me if an article I worked on only once some time ago has problems? Given that I am a fairly prolific AfC reviewer there are probably many articles which I accepted into mainspace and now have various maintenance tags - In fact I added those tags myself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub: as dedicated as I am to making accurate and involved research before voting at RfA even I can make mistakes. Nevertheless, you got my vote changed from a 'Neutral' leaning oppose, to a clear 'support'. Looks like you'll pass too. That said, what I and DGG, and a few others are looking for is to wrest the AfC process out the hands of the resident programmers and introduce a completely new system that will make reviewing much easier for qualified reviewers, easier to ensure that all reviewers are applying the same criteria, and easier to keep unqualified reviewers away from the process. I did my bit in getting the new Draft namespace approved, and again in getting some criteria of competency for reviewers established, now we need some broader help and support to get the rest of the improvements done. We need that doing fast because others are campaigning now for a complete disbandment of the AfC system and unloading it onto NPP which has enough problems of its own. Perhaps Anne can exert some influence too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I get the feeling that only a liberal application of high explosives would really fix AFC. I'm afraid we missed the ideal opportunity to rebuild it from the ground up when Draft-space came online. Back to the Inquisition I go to be further racked and grilled about my "poor showing" at AFD! (I wonder why AFD in particular seems to be regarded as such a critical factor for Adminship?) Cheers and thanks for the support. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD is deemed so critical to the RfA process because in the absence of other concrete metrics it's the one place where we can get some kind of overview of a candidate's knowledge of policies, and it's the one place where an admin needs to demonstrate good skills of evaluation of consensus to be ablke to close them - most admin work is concerned with deletions, undeletions, refunds, etc, while not so much admin work actually involves blocking and remonstrating with other users.

Back to the use of TNT, I did some heavy lobbying in the secret chambers of the Wiki senate to get the Draft namespace approved and launched as quickly as possible. My medium to long term plan in getting it created was to follow up with a proposal for an entirely new AfC system built around it, but the constant battle between two goliaths of helper script design for the old system not only ignored my proposal, but caused me to back away for many months from supporting new ideas for AfC at all. More recent lobbying in London with some of the major movers and shakers of Wikipedia/Wikimedia has encouraged me to renew my campaign for a new kind of AfC, and in spite of DGG being of a different opinion on your RfA we are in fact very good friends and collaborators and have the very same interests at heart for both AfC and NPP. What we need to do now is to get a proper team together, but if I have anything to do with it, it won't include those mastodons of data manipulation. See WT:Page Curation for an interesting current discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting indeed, I think the overall field of page curation/crap filtering/quality control should be more tightly integrated and cooperative. Right now we have people who recommend NPP as good experience for wannabe admins while at the same time pouring scorn on AFC work - when in reality they are fundamentally the same job, just done in different namespaces and apparently by almost entirely distinct populations of editors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental difference between NPP and AfC are their social structures and not really the actual work involved. Where AfC does have a core of hard working individuals who (whether they actually get along with each other or not) collaborate and maintain a permanent dialogue with one another, it has a 'home' feel and a sense of project about it. NPP has no social structure whatsoever, there is absolutely zero interaction between patrollers, and attempts over the years to bring them together have all failed. Namely becuase the the pool of patrollers is too transient, made up mainly of newbies who come there for a bit of button mashing and then move on when they get bored with it.

The ideal solution would be to merge AfC and NPP, taking the people who review articles at AfC and the software that runs NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As Kudpung knows, I entirely support him in his approach to this: the fewer routes we have, the better we can watch them. There's a great tendency at WP to invent new procedures, when what is really needed is more careful attention. There is no mechanical or automated solution possible to the real problems with new articles and new users: giving the appropriate individualized advice and attention to people. some routing kinds of garbage can be thrown out without need for comment, but even what appears obvious junk to us, may not appear in that light to the submitter, who is almost always in good faith, however mistaken they may by in what is needed for Wikipedia.

There was a critical time early in WP, before either Kudpung or I had joined, when the current structure of dealing with people and article by elaborate templates was invented. It was an well-intentioned attempt to get proper standards of uniform advice and handling of articles, What was lost sight of, is that proper handing and uniform results can not be done in a mechanical fashion. Even if the advice on the mechanised form should happen to be entirely appropriate, the individual needs to know that they are not feeding articles into a machine, but that what they do is being looked at my humans--humans who are there to help build an encyclopedia by a multitude of small personal actions. Even were we capable of devising staandardized procedures that fully addressed the questions with a particular submission and anticipated the likely objection, and did not confuse with advice and instructions for many other other possible situations (a precision that is apparently beyond the abilities of anyone here to actually accomplish), still the necessary impression of personal contact would be lost. That's why the Teahouse works relatively well--regardless of whether the advice given is correct or not, it is almost always clearly and obviously a human being speaking to another human.

As a practical way to go forward, I agree that the software behind NPP is considerably better than that for AfC, and this ought to be the structure to build on, to the extent we need structure. The main reason we need some degree of structure is that the Draft space or some equivalent compartment is necessary as a practical matter to deal with work in progress that is not yet ready; but what I have not yet seen is a way of integrating it into a practical workflow. The key ingredient in a practical workflow is a way of directing new submissions to someone who knows the practices for the particular subject--at present this is mainly done by self-selection, but we do have a possible structure in the WP:Deletion sorting process--the Wikiprojects are a good structure for dealing with the great number of WP articles in a manageable and competent fashion.

Kundpung, you mentioned TNT. A few months ago, I came to the conclusion that the best way of fixing afc is indeed just that. I am continuing to consider the possibility of a MfD on the project pages, with an acceptable compromise being to keep it only long enough to clear out the existing articles, but to enter no more articles into the procedure. We would do better to have no structure at all, than a structure than gets it wrong almost as often as it gets it right. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

David, I've pinged Anne on this, and then I think we should sit down and think things out with a view to proposing something concrete. We need to find a quiet corner to do this until we are ready with an RfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:Stub sorting may be a better model for Draft sorting than Deletion sorting - many (if not most) of the Stub categories could probably be directly "transposed" into Draft categories. As for the overall process, I think the RfC should explore merging AFC and NPP into a single operation combining NPP's tools and AFC's collaboration/newbie help system (might as well include the Teahouse in the merge too). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If an AfC reform is going to have my support (and usually projects that I have instigated actually succeed), an RfC won't explore anything. The RfC will propose a well thought out, clear cut solution leaving the community really the only options of either accepting or rejecting it. That's why it's so important to choose a very small team carefully, know exactly beforehand what support will come from upstairs for the tweaks to the site software, and to find a quiet corner to prepare everything without the usual background noise from every wannebe programmer with his or her own ideas, or who is afraid that the new solution will largely leave them with out a job to do - except reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I misspoke, "explore" is too wishy-washy - a definitive solution is needed. I think a subpage right here in your userspace might be a suitable "quiet corner". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's usually the place where most of the successful RfC proposals are discussed and drafted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Since Kudpung seems determined that I should participate in this discussion, here is my contribution:

1. The only solution that I can envision would have to include enlisting enough willing editors to review about 300 pages per day, plus personally mentor the editors of the ones that could possibly become articles, or fix them up to minimum specs themselves if the editors don't respond. That's about ten times as many editors who are currently working at AfC, by my guess. And, of course, the solution should not expose any of these pages to mainspace unless they have a 50% chance of passing AfD; I'm sure that you'll agree that this is essential. If we had these editors available, AfC would work fine the way it is. There is nothing wrong with the software; the process is only problematic because there aren't enough people willing to take on the followup work. Your solution will have to explain how you are going to attract these mentors. I can't think of one, so I will be no help at this stage.
2. I am not inclined to participate in a discussion in which only certain editors are welcome. I prefer open discussion over closed/hidden meetings, even if it takes longer. I had enough of that in my real life job before retirement. I have also had enough of putting time into discussions which are approved, ready to implement, but are never implemented because of lack of participation by technical experts, and I am more inclined to spend my time improving the existing submissions. I will mind my own business unless it appears that this is to be mandated from above somehow without community consensus, as appears to be the plan, starting with off-wiki lobbying, in which case you will find me arrayed with the community.
3. If you come up with something that appears to satisfy #1 and are ready for general input (#2), I will be happy to begin participating at that point. My training in instructional design, logic and user interface construction, as well as the fact that I edit a lot, may make me suitable for a role in testing and debugging your "workflow". —Anne Delong (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong, some comments. (1)The articles will have to be reviewed by someone at some point no matter what system we have. If we don;t have enough people to do them all properly, we need some way of directing our efforts where they will do the most good. (For comparison, at its peak around 2007 or 8, NP was getting almost 2000 articles a day. One third were obvious keeps, one third speedy deletes; that left 600 that needed consideration--half eventually got deleted. the error rate was about 10 to 20% in both directions) (2)' For an AfC like process, 50% chance is too low.--it will result either in putting all the work into AfD, or making careless keeps that cause problems later. AfD of 200 or so articles a day beyond what we now have will be a very time consuming process indeed, & a lot of the decisions will be by chance. (3)' Of course we need open discussion, but it helps to have something concrete to discuss. That can sometimes best be done by a few people somewhere--in the RW, Even when there's a formal discussion committee, it takes a prior well-thought out proposal to get anywhere. (4)' I do am mainly working trying to deal with the current work, but the few of us cannot keep up, and the only way out is to spend some time in getting a solution. (5) The only practical immediate solution to to train people to assist us, and this will be needed for any procedure we devise (6)' My personal preferred procedural solution at this point is to divide up the drafts among the wikiprojects. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

DGG (1) My point about the needed bodies is that I am extremely skeptical that you'll get enough participation to make any worthwhile improvement. It would be nice to be proved wrong. Most of the posts I make at Wikiprojects are ignored, and with certain ones I don't even bother trying. There are nine or ten where there are interested editors, and mostly it's just one or two people in the whole project, so notifying the project is just a roundabout way to notify them. Instead I expect just another new process that will cause even less reviewing while it's being developed. (2) My point about the 50% was that it would be ironic if you went with the NPP model, dumping all of the pages into mainspace to be reviewed there, they'd be mostly deleted, problem solved - but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In the current AfC almost nobody aims for 50% anyway. That's partly why we have so many rejections. (3) Go for it. (4) I agree. Saying is not doing, though. (5) and (6) see point 1. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@DGG, Anne, Very interesting topic - WT:WikiProject Articles for creation#Academic review of AfC - that talks directly to AfC reform/improvement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Joe Decker:.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Grant ideas

Hey Kudpung, it was nice chatting with you at Wikimania, and I hope you got to catch up with Keilana at some point during the conference. I wanted to follow-up with you about the grant idea you discussed with me about doing university presentations around Thailand about Wikipedia. I think it's a great idea and something I encourage you explore it when you are able. I recommend checking out Travel & Participation Support Grants (which covers travel, accomodation, and incidental expenses generally for one or a few trips) or an Individual Engagement Grant (which covers the same expenses, but is focused on online impact and could likely cover several trips). You had also said you had a draft of your idea written out in some form; you might consider posting the gist of it on IdeaLab to get some feedback on it, and what grant might be best for you. Feel free to ping me if you have any grant-related questions for Individual Engagement Grants, since I'm in the middle of mine right now! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung, just checking in. If you wanted to ask questions about the grants and grant writing process,there are a few meetings hosted by the WMF this month. I'll be at some of these as well. Are you considering applying? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

• Interview: Improving the visibility of digital archival assets using Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

• WikiProject report: Bats and gloves

• Op-ed: A new metric for Wikimedia

• Featured content: English Wikipedia departs for Japan

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

I didn't review the page. I tagged it. Now I've moved it to the correct title The Soulicious Tour, Live at the O2 as it took place at the The O2 Arena and not the The 02 Arena. I've also prodded it because there is no evidence that a single concert/DVD is notable. By the way contrary to the template I'm not a NPP. I just happened to notice it and saw the editor had used a 0 rather than a O. After reading it, and searching for information, I considered deleting it but decided to tag it instead and give the editor time to fix it. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep off my Talk (again)

I've asked you previously to not post ay my Talk page, I meant it. You recently posted again to do your normal intimidation attempt threat/warning. Are you having memory failure? Stay the fuck off my Talk page, unless as admin you have official business. (You can take "shit or get off the pot" phrase you used on Drmies's Talk and apply it to yourself perhaps. Good luck with your continued overgeneralizations and compulsion to campaign stereotypic wars Eric appropriately called "silly". Your indirect insult re "acolytes" is noted dear guy, you should stop the condescension -- everyone sees thru it but you, you are supposed to have some education under your belt, but your behavior screams someone overdue for retirement. Good luck with your current campaign to "not be so polite" and spread continued ridiculous and unnecessary division and acrimony. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation

I saw you listed yourself as a translator from French. Could you please kindly translate this relatively short article from the French Wikipedia in order to create an equivalent entry here on the English Wikipedia? Thanks! 89.139.184.202 (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking but translating this kind of article is very low priority for me as it's not within my sphere of interest. Have you tried putting it through Google and then smartening it up? Google is fairly accurate when it comes to French to English, but please don't put the raw Google translation into mainspace. You'll need to register an account too to create the article --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to ask another translator. 89.139.184.202 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Moulton

Hi,

I see that you were an admin involved in a deletion decision (Seth Moulton: Revision history) in reference to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Moulton. I wasn't involved in the previous page, and do not know its contents. However, I have created a new draft page on this topic, User:Rustavo/Seth Moulton, which I believe satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, which were the original concerns that led to the deletion. The new draft article is extensively cited, with links to articles in national media, including NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and TIME magazine, local media including the Boston Globe and Boston Magazine (both feature-length pieces on the subject), and an Acadamy Award-nominated documentary in which the subject was extensively interviewed. Please let me know if you agree that it would be appropriate to re-create this page - I have also contacted the original deletion admin through User talk:Tom Morris.

Thanks,

-Rustavo, 1 September 2014

Hi Rustavo. Please see WP:Talk page to know how to communicate effectively through talk pages.

According to our records I was not involved in the deletion discussion of this article. I procedurally effected a second deletion that did not require discussion. I will reveiw your draft and will let you have my findings in due course. I have informed Tom Morris. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the draft. These are my findings without prejudice to what Tom Mohris may have to say.

Sources:

1. Harvard Crimson is based on interview and/or first hand report from the subject himself, and not a journalistic research
2. Boston Magazine, reliable source, provides in-depth coverage
3. No End in Sight is a Wikip[edia article, not admissible as a source.
4. Boston Globe, reliable source, provides in-depth coverage
5. npr, recorded talk/interview by the subject (primary source). May p[rovide some evidence but does not add to notability (e.g. YouTube).
6. No End in Sight is an official web site for a documentary film. The website is not about Moulton.
7. 'MSNBC' reliable source (TV news channel) fleeting mention - little more than a name in a list. Confirms political candidacy.
8. CNN reliable source (TV news channel) fleeting mention - little more than a name in a list. Confirms political candidacy.
9. TIME, reliable source, provides in-depth coverage about the subject's political convictions.

Summary: The article contains little or no traditional background (personal data) that is usual for biographies, and misses an infobox: {{Infobox politician}}. Moulton may possibly be notable for something (high level awards for gallantry during military sevice, other high level academic or society awards?) , and this requires further investigation, otherwise it reads like a typical political campaign candidate profile which is not the purpose of Wikipedia biographies. It still fails to meet most criteria for WP:POLITICIAN; while Point #2 of WP:POLITICIAN accepts "significant press coverage" , I would like a second opinion as regards Footnote #7. The 'litmus' test we apply to moving user drafts into mainspace is: would it stand at least a 50/50 chance of survival at WP:AfD? Let's see what Tom Morris has to say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Kudpung, thanks for taking the time to look at the draft. As you can see, I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, so I've been refreshing my memory about the guidelines. Some quick points in response:

1. I'm happy to add additional biographical details you think would be appropriate, but a more specific request would be helpful.
2. Notability as a commentator on the Iraq war: I understand that interviews can be considered primary sources rather than (preferred) secondary sources - one might say that an interview with Lt. Moulton is an interview *about* the Iraq war with a soldier who may be *representative*, but not necessarily notable in and of himself. However, the sheer number of NPR interviews (at least 6), over the course of many years, indicate that he was chosen by the producers to fill a particular role as a commentator - he didn't just happen to be the random soldier on the street 6 times in a row. Obviously this is underscored by his playing a similar role in "No End in Sight" - he is very prominently featured, and delivers the final lines of the film. I suspect that his experience as a public speaker, his experience with broadcast media as a military radio host, and his unusual educational biography (from Harvard to the Marines) may explain why he was repeatedly sought out to contribute to these projects, but the exact reasons are unimportant - he clearly became established as a go-to contributor on the topic of the Iraq War for prominent media outlets & a documentarian, which certainly helps establish his notability.
3. The Boston Magazine and Boston Globe articles, as you mention, are in-depth secondary sources, explicitly about the subject, which both discuss his role as a commentator on the Iraq War per the above point. To me this satisfies all the essential criteria of Wikipedia:Notability before we even get to his political career (for which I think the Boston Globe article and Time magazine column suffice for point #2 of WP:POLITICIAN, as you suggest). Note that there are additional national press coverage examples I haven't included, such as Joe Klein's previous TIME magazine article about Moulton which he mentions in the referenced column (I think I found it but it's behind a paywall - it also predates Moulton's political career. If you are by any chance a TIME magazine subscriber, feel free to check out http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2089337,00.html and add the citation if appropriate).
4. The third citation is actually a URL link to a pdf on the No End In Sight webpage with brief biographies on members of the cast, including info about Moulton's combat role in Najaf. The little pdf symbol is easy to miss - let me know if there is a better way to format this. The sixth citation (the No End In Sight webpage) could be replaced with any number of movie reviews that mention his role in the film if that would be more appropriate. Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 04:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We tend to accord very little weight to sources that are not specifically about the subject and/or only fleetingly mentioning him/her, however numerous or otherwise reliable such sources may be.

To avoid this article appearing to be a an electoral support piece, which its timing and glowing presentation could lead one to assume, it would need to significantly play down the role as a hitherto unelected political candidate, and include traditional biographical data such as place of birth, date of birth/death, parentage, upbringing/childhood, marriage/partnership, offspring, etc.

However, I'm still waiting for a second opinion either from Tom Morris or any of my talk page stalkers who are highly knowledgeable about notability matters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've continued to revise and update User:Rustavo/Seth Moulton over the past 2 days. There has actually been substantial new press in that time, and I'd added several more references, as well as expanding the election section with a focus on controversies regarding Moulton's political views, which have been covered extensively in reliable, independent secondary sources. I really appreciate your prior review / constructive criticism of the draft, and have made formatting changes and added 'traditional background' info.

My feeling is that the article as it stands, clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN (Section 2 as well as 3, which essentially references WP:GNG). You also alluded to some concern regarding WP:PROMOTION due to the timing shortly before the election - this is reasonable, but on the other hand, there has been a substantial increase in reliable secondary source coverage of the subject (including in national press) in the past few weeks due to the proximity of said election, making the case for notability much stronger than it was at the time when the prior pages were created and deleted. I don't think there is anything about the article's tone or content which is propagandistic, biased, or otherwise in violation of WP:NPOV, but feel free to point out specific concerns.

Given this, I think it would be appropriate to move the draft page to the main page space in the near future, say by tomorrow evening (EDT). You're obviously much more experienced than I am about the guidelines, but I think that doing this will catalyze contributions from others to both the page content and this discussion (which I would invite you to move to the talk page of Seth Moulton). Please let me know if you don't thing this would be appropriate, although I'd certainly encourage you to also find more voices to join the discussion, given that Tom Morris hasn't weighed in. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You might as well move it to mainspace and see what happens. There's absolutely no need to copy this discussion to it's talk page - indeed, I deliberately kept the conversation here so as not to use its talk page. If anyone tags it for deletion, which is possible because some users will still have it on their watchlists, let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have strong opinions about this. I'd lean towards saying that if the draft page were nominated for deletion, it'd probably be kept now. It seems like it probably squeaks past WP:GNG, and it seems like WP:BLP1E would be satisfied. If you want to move it into mainspace, I'm not really opposed. As Kudpung says, move it on over and see what happens. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. I moved the page to mainspace last night, and it has now been nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Moulton_(2nd_nomination)). I will refer to this discussion on that page, but please feel free to weigh in. Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 10:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Secretary of State

All members of the British cabinet are referred to, informally, as Secretary of State, whilst formally holding the title of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for [particular deparment] as outlined by the Interpretation Act 1978, a link to which is here and the specific measure can be found in alphabetical order under 'Secretary of State'. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/schedule/1 James Nilsson-Forrest (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi James. I Googled for a reference to source an unsourced article. What I got was the government source that is now in the article and which corresponds to the article's title. Please see, for example, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which you have also edited. If you wish to change the naming convention across the encyclopedia for British ministries, you are welcome to start an RfC - you may even be right. What we need is consistency. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I notice also that with this edit you did not source the article - so easy to do and remove an ugly tag... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)