User talk:Kudpung/Archive Dec 2011

Intro and assessment of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab

Raqib nizami (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Every time you and other respective editors point me NPOV and other law,but let me tell you If it is only for Muhammad ibn ab al Wahhab that you can not criticize or tell truth then why not for "Adolf Hitler"!here in wikipidia[1]there is no debate and edit war to say that Hitler is commonly associated with the rise of fascism and the Holocaust in Europe and responsible for world war!then why So much alert and debate on the fact of Muhammad ibn ab al Wahhab tried to reform a new sect(firqa)wahhabism!?When there are so many Historical proof supporting my point. why we cant criticize Muhammad ibn ab al Wahhab when Wikipedia let criticize Even Prophet Muhammad[2]?

Montessori High School at University Circle

Hello -- Good Afternoon,

I am confused why you tagged my "Montessori High School at University Circle" page I've created this past hour. I seemed to be in mid edit when you put in the warnings.

Thanks for what you do!

USAF_1832 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaf 1832 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In some instances, tagging helps draw the creator's attention to possible issues while the creators may still be logged in and able to respond - many articles, especially those on schools, are created by WP:SPA who do not return to their articles which may then be subsequently deleted if the issues are not addressed. Such tags are not necessarily a criticism of the article or work in progress, and are intended as a help. Thank you for responding to the issues; there is however still the concern that the references you supplied are not reliable sources and do not assert notability for inclusion per our criteria for organisations. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response again. It doesn't appear I am an WP:SPA, since I have never been to the school or have any affiliation--I'm defined as an independent party.

"references you supplied are not reliable sources and do not assert notability for inclusion per our criteria for organisations."

According to your link, a newspaper article is a credible source. There have been at least three newspaper articles written by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, two of which I linked as my reference. Do I still need more?

--User:Usaf 1832 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. My apologies if you misunderstood - there is a big difference between WP:SPA and WP:COI, and I was just generalising on a major issue concerning new articles. By reliable sources, it is generlly expected that sources will be multiple and have extensive coverage; newspapers should be established, not local, and be at least of regional, or in the USA, of state-wide distribution; this is of particular importance for schools as they often receive routine mentions in local newspapers. This for example, is simply an information piece on the opening of the school; at that time the school would not have earned any notability, while this is little more than advertorial that again is only based on the school's opening. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, again. I was able to add in an article out of Tempe, Arizona http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2011/09/23/20110923tempe-district-weigh-montessori-high-school.html, and essentially include about every other source I could possibly find on the new school, as you will see with the spike in sources.

This is very difficult to find additional coverage because the place is a new school. Can the article remain? Do I cover the warnings you posted at the top? User:Usaf 1832 (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Create article

Hello Kudpung, We were in touch earlier this year and I started to create an article for The Amazing People Club. www.amazingpeopleclub.com At the time we were about to sign deals with Ebsco Publishing, Global Grid for Learning and Pearson Education. This has all now happened which I believe gives a lot more credentials, PLUS we have been endorsed across the Education Press. I was about to continue the edits but noticed that another administrator has since deleted our draft. Can this be re-created or do we have to start a new one. We will ensure that it is not 'promotional'. Our list of educational resources has now grown vastly and I feel strongly that we should have a wiki page. Greatly appreciate your help and support with this project and any advice you can offer along the way. Thanking you, kind regards, Marion. Lenmar123 (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would caution you about our conflict of interest policy; writing about organizations very close to you is strongly discouraged. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marion. The original article was correctly deleted as being promotional (highly promotional), but also failed to meet other major criteria for inclusions. Receating an article that has no promotional tone is no guarantee hat it will meet all criteria - most especially those for notability, especially the ones for companies and organisations ; yours is a very new organisation and mentions about founding, mergers, take overs, or a publishers list of publications will not suffice. As Blade mentions above, there also appears to be a conflict of interest. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST update

Hi Kudpung,

Just giving you a heads-up about the latest update on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatshark

I've replied on my talk. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand.

(This is with regard to User talk:Dcoetzee#Apprenticeship tools, but I thought it best to bring it here.)

I don't understand. You have stated that the community trusts all users by default (which would be a nice ideal, but I'm afraid for example IPs aren't often given the benefit of the doubt and for good reason), and I proposed a rewording to that effect, which highlights the potential shortcomings of an individual rather than saying that most administrators would not be trusted with the functionary tools. But you also disagree with this because (if I am reading this wrong, please correct me) I opposed your RfA? That's a bit of a non-sequitur. My personal trust in any given candidate has nothing to do with this discussion.

Seeing as you passed, it is clear that the community expressed trust in you; that's fine by me. I bear no grudge, nor do I assume bad faith of RfA candidates. But this frustrates me, because it seems like everywhere you have interacted with me (even at the humorous Editor for Deletion page) my comment in your RfA seems to be a sticking point for you. I respect you and your many efforts to improve the project, and worded my oppose accordingly, as carefully as I could, going so far as to quantify it as a "moral oppose" of sorts, similar to the "this is not the outcome I'm after, but-" moral supports. I simply pointed out what was an impression I had based on what of your opinions I had read and did not intend to sabotage your RfA (or do anything of the sort.)

I don't know if my feeling that you're aggrieved is correct or not. If it is, I'd dearly like to rectify any bad blood between us. I don't want to feel like I've offended you, and I can assure you that I did not intend to. So... is there anything I can do to help resolve this, or am I making a mountain out of a molehill? sonia♫ 23:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sonia, you can rest assured that as an admin and a 62 year old retired professor, I have a very thick skin, and don't bear grudges. I'm also far from being the child hater I was made out to be that nearly sabotaged my RfA (while others realising some voters' errors, retracted their oppose votes). I have nothing whatsoever against young people, I've worked with them all my life, but I do wish they wouldn't all want to be admins or mess with meta stuff - aye, there's the rub, they'll all be stampeding for one of Dcoetzee halloween hats! What we need is to repair the current system, and that begins with honest, well researched voting. No hard feelings, and I would very much like to see you participating more often at RfA :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC) This is an interesting thread, and your olive branch puts things to rights ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you muchly for the gracious response and the kitten! I filled out that NPP survey you worked on, by the way, and am looking forward to seeing the results when they're released. sonia♫ 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

CarrierIQ page deletion

Hello, could you please enlighten us as to why the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarrierIQ page was deleted? Was it being vandalized? Or was it by request? Thank you. --RafaelBGaiarsa (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear why this was deleted. CarrierIQ is getting major coverage lately. — ceejayoz ^talk 15:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are aware that the first article was deleted, you are aware of the reason why. The deleted version had very little resemblance whatsoever with the current article ansd was an unreferenced biography with an even shorter mention of CarrierIQ, with spam links. Notability was not asserted for any of the items in the article. Uncontroversial deletion. BTW, the wired.com source above is a blog. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Notability" doesn't need to be asserted for a page to survive speedy deletion, and neither does speedy deletion consider the reliability of sources. Please refamiliarise yourself with WP:DELPOL. The page you deleted said "It has been discovered that the CarrierIQ software, which is embedded in a majority of cell phones is acting as a keylogger, sending personal information, including confidential information typed into virtual keypads or embedded in https URLs", which is a credible claim of importance - that is all that is needed to survive speedy deletion. You should not have deleted it. We simply drive away contributors with such deletions. Fences&Windows 21:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, blogs at wired.com are news blogs and not personal blogs - the author, David Kravets, is a "senior staff writer for Wired.com". Thus it is a reliable source, see WP:NEWSBLOG. Fences&Windows 21:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Who is this message addressed at? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm addressing you. If you know these things, why did you speedily delete the page and why did you say "BTW, the wired.com source above is a blog"? Fences&Windows 23:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Signing up as Online Ambassador

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Austria156's talk page.
Message added 20:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pune pilot analysis plan

Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. But as I have explained in my posting there, I'm fast loosing interest for the reasons stated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt 2

Hi Kudpung. This is a courtesy note that your support in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt 2 is not recorded in your contributions. It was oversighted because an earlier post by another user contained an inappropriate link about a similarly named individual as the candidate. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Cunard but this explanation is inadequate. A total of 29 votes/comment were oversigted. On whose authority? Who oversighted it? Why has there been no explanation provided on the RfA's talk page? How many actual votes were affected? has the the editor been blocked?A mere 'courtesy' note implies that I have done something wrong on that RfA. Whatever happened was obviously important and must be followed up. PLease let me have more details. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oversight policy. AFAIK, nobody can see the log entry of a user oversighting an edit. →Στc. 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sigma - I am aware of that. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, feel free to e-mail me if you would like a more detailed explanation of why they were oversighted. It's not something we should get into on-wiki, IMO. 28bytes (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, this diff shows the state of the RfA before and after the redacted material was present. Your vote was not removed by the oversighting. 28bytes (talk)

Hi Kudpung. Per MQS's request and explanation about how the news article regarding a similarly named man who committed an atrocious crime could impact his life and career, I requested oversight by emailing Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs). See here and here for more information. Please see also my email to you where I sent you a partial transcript of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment and MQS's response, which was preserved in my browser cache. Cunard (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have undone your second vote because the first one remains in the support column, albeit not in the history. I do not believe that any of the votes were deleted by the oversighter. Cunard (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cunard, and thank you also for the insight in looking in your browser cache. I have made a blank edit to qualify your accusatory ES about my duplicate vote. However, no official explanation for the 28 oversighted edits has been offered, and the above courtesy note looks equally annoyingly like an ANI 'You have been reported...' message. I wish to assure the community that I was in no way involved with whatever happened, and that my integrity is not disputed. Although I'm fully aware that you are acting in GF, please consider expressing your self more accurately,

Additionally, the community should be provided with some basic details through an official statement, in case they feel it is necessary to proceed against whoever did whatever was such a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. It is Sunday 08:53 am here, and if I had been away for the weekend, the true result of an RfA that is due to close in a few hours may have been compromised . In consequence, I have asked for a 24 hour extension to the closure - whether the candidate is likely to succeed or not is immaterial. Let's please look into this further, RfA has become a bad enough joke already. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made a blank edit to qualify your accusatory ES about my duplicate vote – my edit summary was "Undid revision 463921820 by Kudpung (talk), duplicate vote". – it is a purely informative edit summary. Your previous vote of 15 hours prior was five votes above your second vote, where you wrote (bolding preserved): "Replacing a legitimate vote that was arbitrarily removed and oversighted without explanation." Your comment is very accusatory and factually inaccurate. This is a strong contrast to my bland, accurate edit summary of "duplicate vote", which is non-accusatory and ascribes to you no bad faith motives unless you choose to see one. Your comment here reminds me of User talk:Malleus Fatuorum/Archives/2011/November#PA, where you saw a personal attack where there was none.

no official explanation for the 28 oversighted edits has been offered, and the above courtesy note looks equally annoyingly like an ANI 'You have been reported...' message. ... — my notification avoided revealing too much about the sensitive information that was oversighted—a link to a news article that connected MichaelQSchmidt to a similarly named man who committed an atrocious crime. I asked the oversighter to notify everyone whose edits had been oversighted, but he did not wish to get further involved in the RfA and told me to do it if I wanted everyone notified. My email to you of the edit that precipitated the oversighting should have been sufficient explanation as to why it was oversighted. That you doubt my explanation—believing that it is insufficient to ensure that your "integrity is not disputed"—and demand an "official explanation" indicates that I have wasted my time trying to explain why the edits were oversighted.

Although I'm fully aware that you are acting in GF, please consider expressing your self more accurately, – I have expressed myself accurately and honestly. I have spoken all I can say about the matter. Your condescension is unwelcome. Cunard (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I thanked you for your email. But it did not replace an official statement that could easily have been made and that could and perhaps have led to any possible sanctions that might have needed to be considered. Any messages that begin with 'Courtesy note' have obvious connotations and cause a knee-jerk - yes, I was a bit quick to react especially when I couldn't find my vote in the edit history, and I still fail to understand why my part of the editing history has to be removed from all the logs - I don't suffer from eidtcountitis, but I place great worth on the integrity of my contributions in the database, especially on those to RfA matters. The Malleus issue is only the tip of the iceberg of an exasperatingly slow-burning situation and should neither be taken out of context nor used for effect here. There was nothing condescending intended and I'm sorry if you read it as such - all I deduce from that is that you are as sensitive as I am, and that's probably not a bad thing.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you contact the oversighter, Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs), for an "official statement".

He explained to me that all the edits made after Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)'s posting of the inappropriate link had to be oversighted because they contained the link. He oversighted the usernames as well with the following reasoning: "We _could_ remove the revision but leave the name of the user who made it, as you suggest. However, this would then be taken by a casual observer to imply that it was in fact that user who introduced suppression-worthy content; the net effect would be to connect those users with a suppressed incident in which they happened to be innocent bystanders." (I've quoted this statement from our email correspondence under fair use and do not believe my quoting of it violates any privacy or copyright policies. It is a clarification of the oversight policy and is non-private in nature.)

I had read your response as condescending, and thank you for clarifying that it was not meant as such. Cunard (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Hi there thank you for your help regarding the 24weekers and Alan Entwistle (director) pages. They were refered to AfD a few days ago and to date there doesnt appear to be a debate occurring as to whether they should be improved/kept or deleted so I felt it prudent to remove the content - how can I determine timescales for possible deletion or restoration thank you. --Entsal007 (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Normally an AfD is closed with a community decision after 7 days, but we are trying to see if I can delete them for you if the AfD nominator agrees, and if the articles have not received substantial edits by other users. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you

Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. I greatly appreciated your insight. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

• News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins

• In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge

• Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship

• WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...

• Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!

• Arbitration report: Elections due to finish this week, little activity on Betacommand 3, Abortion case amended

• Technology report: Incremental dumps help mirrors, full screen search helps mobile visitors, and two MediaWiki releases help external sites

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack

This message clearly refers to me, and will have been read as such by its recipient. The phrase "delibertely hounding the entire suite of my our Malvern articles" is an exaggeration so gross as to be actually mendacious. This is a personal attack on me and you should withdraw it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

By some process, you appear to have stumbled on the request I made to one of our most experienced, mature, and highly respected editors who is also a professional expert on publications. He is also a very good ombudsman in other matters too - and for what it's worth, although he and I disagree on many things as often as we concur, I will accept without reserve any judgement he cares to make in this/these issues. As you appear to concerned with the interpretation of our policies and guidelines (which are flexible to some extent), which of course we all should be, without predjudice to any current situations, you may find this essay interesting. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The process you find so mysterious was going to his personal talk page after we had engaged in a civilised discussion on sourcing at an article talk page (you should try it some time). Now will you withdraw your false accusation of hounding? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cusop. I did not find it mysterious at at all. I perceived what I considered at the time to be another instance of unnecessary tracking my edits. Based on my revert of an edit you made on a page following comment by Gyromagician that you left unanswered until three months and nine days until I restored the reference, it seemed to me you had followed on by commenting on and/or reverting edits on another page that I have contributed to - which did not in my opinion demonstrate good faith. Having noticed that I and Gyro are among the main contributors to an entire suite of Malvern articles that includes at least two GAs, you could have come to a user talk page with something such as Hi Kudpung/Gyro, I've noticed that you frequently use a reference to Rose Garrard on Malvern related articles that might not in some circumstances, be a reliable source, can you tell me why you feel it is? and if you had, you would have received a warm and friendly reply. Nevertheless, as I do appreciate your concerns for accuracy, here is a complete list of pages that might concern Garrard references: Edward Elgar, ‎Venice Biennale, Malvern, Worcestershire, Great Malvern, Barnards Green, North Malvern, ‎Malvern water, Rose Garrard. This reference may ultimately satisfy your curiosity about Garrard, while this discussion (almost all of it) will illustrate not only my personal concern for accurate referencing, but also how I normally engage in discussions about them. If you want some examples of incivility on Wikipedia, I can provide some (and which are sadly tolerated even by some of those those empowered to delrev them). In deference to your request, however, and based on what seems to have been an unfortunate concourse of circumstances, I will modify the statement that you find so offensive, and perhaps we can both get back to a more collegial approach to editing and communicating. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for refactoring your accusation of hounding. You suggest that I should have asked you or another editor about the source. On the contrary, the article talk page is the place to discuss issues of this kind -- I refer you to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user". Neither you nor anyone else owns the Malvern articles, and I do not need to consult you personally before making changes to them. Now let us all return to building the encyclopaedia. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Query regarding your Admin status

Kudpung. I was wondering if you could shed some light on this [1] where you claim to be "not even an admin." You are a verified admin. since October 2006. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung passed RfA in March 2011. That comment was made in February. Looks fine to me. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So this Userbox is a bit misleading then [2]? I assume that it is when he first became a registered user, but it is misleading in a user box that is used for Admin. verification. Leaky Caldron 11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That date is when the user registered his/her account. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Danjel's got it right. Remember that sysop status is something that can come and go, so it wouldn't make sense to have the date it was added there. I'm looking through special pages to see if there's something which tells us when a user's rights are updated. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah - it appears to be admin only Worm^TT · (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a way for non-admins. to determine the date of someone's successful RfA rather than trawling through the RfA lists. Leaky Caldron 12:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Gods. Distractable++ today. Bloody shiny things... Totally lost my train of thought. Thanks Worm for providing another edit for me to look at.

What I meant to say is that it says when the user registered and to which groups they belong. For example, mine says that I'm a rollbacker and reviewer and that I registered some time before our ancestors slithered out of the ocean. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's also available directly form the 'Rights changes' link in the 'user' tab at the top of every user page and user talk page, and also here in the glaring blue navbox. I think Leaky should do more careful research before making sweeping statements - I've know people cry "PA!" for less. 'Where you claim to to be..' is verging on a not very friendly form of communication. If he believes I've done something wrong somewhere, and he's looking for skellies in my closet, he should spit it out in clear text, because I'm not afraid to hear it ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked you a simple, civil question in an uncomplicated manner. The Userbox for Admin. verification is clearly misleading. I suggest you remind yourself of a couple of your responsibilities as an Admin here WP:ADMINACCT and here WP:NOTPERFECT rather than immediately jumping to assume bad faith on my part. I note from other places that you have some ongoing issues with NPA and ownership concerns so maybe you're under pressure. That's no concern of mine. However, if you wish to assume bad faith because I have asked you for a simple clarification, I'm more than happy to join you over at WP:WQA. Leaky Caldron 12:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Leaky. OK, I'm tending to observe a lot of genuine bad faith around the place recently, so perhaps I overreacted to your unfortunate but good faith concourse of syntax. To be honest, I've seen enough double standards and sanctimonious bleating lately from those who are happy to get as close to incivility and PA as they dare while claiming to be leaders in the drive against it, and it has made me, for the fist time at Wikipedia, just a very tiny bit somewhat jittery. Nevertheless, If it's no concern of yours, why make such a show of being concerned about it? I really don't think you are helping to improving matters, so perhaps it would be better if we both got back to some content editing, and perhaps on my part rather for my publisher than on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Inherent notability for elementary schools which have been "Blue Ribbon Schools"

I am contacting you because you participated in either the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in a redirect or the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in restoration of the article because it was once a "Blue Ribbon School". I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools" as to whether the 5200 schools which have been found awarded the "Blue Ribbon" seal of approval get inherent notability, or if they each have to satisfy WP:ORG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your input is welcome.Thanks! Edison (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked Account

Why did you block my account? I did not put this information on here. Someone must of hacked my account.LordComputerHero (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I will look into this immediately, and if it was an error on my part, I will of course unblock. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

LordComputerHero (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Your account is not currently blocked, it was only a short block and seems to date back to an event or events on or near 23 October. I am looking into the reason now and this will take a little longer. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Thank you for wasting over an hour of my time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheer Up

Tofutwitch11 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}

You seem to be a little snappy lately. Take a deep breath, maybe drink a little coffee, and then get back to work. I know it can be hard when is seems everyone dumping their bad faith and account hacking stories all over you, but try to stay as calm as I've seen you in be in the past, no matter the situation. Good Day! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Tofu. See, I need someone to take care of me too! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For your recent assistance responding to the request I left on someone else's talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. For your cunning wikijaguar attack at User talk:GorillaWarfare‎. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Danjel! I could have done it myself, but I didn't want to tread on the shoes of a great admin :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It was a convenient excuse to leave work instead of hanging around writing reports. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hey plss pledge ur support or help in editing Chembukadavu plss i need some more edits there plss Anand the creator (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ya fine i'll eedit it :)

Anand the creator (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for adminship/Orekhova

Hello, Kudpung,

we've encountered sometime ago as you edited my articles. I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully). I will also appreciate any of your advices. --Orekhova (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung,

thank you for your comment, I hope to address you when I grow up a bit :) --Orekhova (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Lost tiree, lost dutch :O's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A Great Deal On An Incredible Health Supplement

Thanks for notifying the article's creator about its speedy deletion. I was on my way to do so myself, but you beat me to it. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Five blatant ads in a row - Blocked. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and the username makes it pretty obvious too. Good block. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

About "Australian Concept Infertility Medical Centre"

Hi Kudpung, and thank you for the kind WP:USERFY offer. Do I really think it has potential to pass WP:ORG? No. It might at sometime in the future, but it doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG now. I volunteered to help to the article creator, and I will honour that if it comes again, but it seems to me an obvious good WP:DEL.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Euclidthegreek

Hi there. Is it standard practice to delete these sorts of things? If so, I don't really understand what the clause in WP:G7 about the mover having been the same as the contributor means. Confused It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This was a user page deletion following a username change. The deletion had been requested by the renamed user. Don't worry - Wikipedia is a complicated place ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2011

Jenna Mason

We already have an article at Zombieland. This is a copyright violation from that article, put ther by a guy who is only vandalizing and is on their last warning. Please put the db tag back, we don't need a seven-day discussion before we remove vandalism. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I know what it is. Before you lecture me see what I have done already, and in future please take care to use the correct db criterion, and read WP:DELETION. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How very condescending of you. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Won't the BLPROD template be a little odd?Article has references,but,that is not reliable.You should take it to AFD.Please do not mind in any other way.Thanks,That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 07:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This source is not connected with the subject. Even with the rules of BLPPROD, a source should have something in it that refers directly to the person. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK,That's fine now..That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 07:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Douglas House School Malvern

I have recently been in touch with a Thai friend who attended Douglas House School Malvern, as I did, from 1955 -57. I have been piecing together the history of the school and know it was sold to Malvern College in 1974 and was rebuilt as the Lindsay Arts Centre. I am interested in its earlier history - did the school transfer to Malvern (as several schools did) during wartime from the south coast. I know it was founded in 1944 by Mrs Owen -Williams. The Thai connection is also interesting as several girls attended the school from Siam (Thailand) and lodged at Homestead in Assarts Rd Malvern Wells. Any additional information you have would be gratefully received Thanks Rose--Roseatbuzz (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rose for your interesting message. My father was transferred from Worth Matravers to Malvern with TRE in 1941. I did most of the research for the Malvern St James school and its complex take-overs for the Wikipedia article, and as a former resident of Malvern I do remember Douglas House, although somewhat vaguely - as a male of course I did not attend any of these schools, but I was honoured to be among guests at a special open day at St James in September. However, I really do not know where to find any additional information about Douglas or how to follow up on any connections here in Thailand. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Saving Lawrence "Lawrie" Bond, thank you!

I was about to tag that article for G12. Thank you for saving it! Planetary ChaosTalk 13:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bond car was very popular in the UK when I was a kid in the 50s & 60s. I would have already deleted it but its subject is indeed notable and deserves an article. I think the creator will rewrite it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Biography

A biography of a living person requires at least one reference or it will be deleted. Does a biography of a deceased person require one reference?Msruzicka (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No. that's quite different situation. We use a standard WP:PROD and/or maintenance tags calling for references. Notwithstanding, all articles should be referenced, but not necessarily immediately, except of course BLPs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

• I think it'd look weird to post another talkback template, so I'm just here to tell you that I replied to your comment on Fetchcomms talk page. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to agree with you here, on virtually all points (hence, I am bringing the discussion here). CSD is an area that requires a lot of caution, and deletion isn't necessarily always the answer. By the way, you're referring primarily to admins who still don't understand WP:CSD in the context of Fetchcomms talk page discussion and not taggers, right? The reason I'm asking is because I was on NPP yesterday and I noticed you deleted some of the articles I've tagged. You weren't making subtle reference to anything I've done, I hope? I don't mean to pester you over this, I just want to be helpful to Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I was referring to admins who still don't (or won't) understand deletion policy. I know for a fact, for rxample, that many admins click delete immediately thry see a CSD template without investigating if the page was correctly tagged. If I've deleted something you have tagged for deletion, you can be pretty sure you tagged it correctly. If you hadn't, I would have left you a polite message so that you could learn from your error :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I appreciate your sentiments. :)

I'm just really cautious when it comes to CSD. I don't want to accidentally hurt someone's feelings and dishearten them from making any more contributions to this site. It's so typical of me, even in real life. I guess maybe I'm just too self-conscious for my own good. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no harm in tagging an article for deletion as long as it's clearly within the policies and guidelines - in fact it should be done, and the actual criteria are quite clear. What isn't easy to understand is that A7 for example, isn't to be used if there a re reasonsable claims to notability even if there are no refs. A company that claims 'We are the largest supplier of nails in the eastern hemisphere and we've won awards for hitting the nail on the head with our marketing' might be telling the truth, although it's spammy, and needs rewriting for neutrality and proving. On the other hand, a garage band that claims 'We are the biggest band in Bell End (easily true) and we've played in all the pubs in Worcestershire (easily true), and have and have 30,000 hits to our YouTube' (easily true) probably isn't notable, and a quick Google search will soon see if they meet WP:BAND. The best thing to do if you're not sure which criterion to use is to leave it for someone else, or PROD it. The main thing is to do some basic research before tagging anything. This is where there is often some misunderstanding - it doesn't mean stopping and rewriting the article for the creator (although I do a lot of that too!) - most articles that arrive at special:new pages are created by WP:SPA who will never become regular editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's basically what I do, although I don't think the hypothetical garage band you mentioned would satisfy A7 either, as notability is asserted. But that's just my take on it. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's where the fine line lies: knowing the difference between asserted notability and asserted crap. The band in the example is obviously looking for free publicity and is asking to be deleted per G11 - or both. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. And I agree, on reflection — I had forgotten to take into account the fact that they were writing about themselves. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The first thing to look at with any article are the refs - if they are only to MyFace, SpaceBook, ChewDube, or tweet like a sparrow, you can be reasonably sure that the creator has a bird brain or made his music in his bedroom. On the other hand, a long list of refs on a relatively short article is always suspicious, they are usually scraping the barrel for anything that mentions the subject, however vaguely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Blofeld

Dr. Blofeld is making articles such as S.B. Jones and J.Y. MacFadyen and G.C.H. Thomas etc.. etc.. and someone is deleting the article and turning it into a redirect. A user has done this to many of Blofeld’s articles. Is this vandalism? Go through Blofeld’s contribs it is surprising how many new articles have been turned into a redirect. Users who turn perfectly good articles into redirects repeatedly should be blocked for vandalism.Msruzicka (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No, redirecting articles is not vandalism. If you think the articles should not be redirected, you can either undo the edit yourself or contact the redirecting user and ask xer to reconsider. →Στc. 01:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with Blofeld's stubs. Turning some of them into stubs rdirects may possibly be appropriate, and whatever the case, it's not vandalism, and may not even be particularly disruptive. As Σ suggests, it's perfectly admissible WP:BRD and should be discussed in the normal manner. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Mpop (email client)

Hi Kudpung. I noticed that you closed the AfD for the Mpop article earlier today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mpop (e-mail client) as delete. However, the article still exists, although at a slightly different title: mpop (email client). It was moved while the AfD was running. Could you delete the article? It has been tagged as CSD:G6 by another editor, but that was several hours ago. Many thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Going for it

Today will be the day.--Slon02 (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And now it's time. Here it goes..--Slon02 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Badgering

Badgering opposes is unlikey to assist in making RFA a nicer place, as your snarky comments that I go an recall hundreds of admins is nothing more that spitting in my face. I suggest that you stop. Your conduct is unbecoming. Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Links for archive: RfA Slon02, and [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST update

Hi Kudpung,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!

1. ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
2. CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Douglas House

Thanks for the information re Malvern schools -I'll keep you posted!--Roseatbuzz (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictures From History

Dear Kudpung,

Thanks you very much for your helpful reply. I'll make the changes and see what happens.

I too am a Brit and have lived in at Ban Tha Kam some 10km south of Chiang Mai for more than 20 years, so ขอบคุณมากครับ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dru2 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think your article will be able to conform to our policies, let me know and I'll create a copy of it in your user space for you to work on there. โชคดี! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewards board...and a random question

Have you ever considered posting at WP:Rewards board calling for people to help reduce the new-article backlog? Maybe this will help the now-growing backlog and give Pesky a helping hand. Talking Pesky, I think she's on and off these days and so that might be the reason in the backlog's expansion.

Another question, is Udon Thani the place where the USAF launched bombers and fighters against North Vietnam during the War? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that would adequately address the issue of the backlog at AfC now would be the implementation either of WP:ACTRIAL or to resume development of the Article Creation Flow. The WMF refused to implement the former, created the latter instead but don't appear to have done any more development on it for months. I'm surprised Pesky's still with Wikipedia at all after the insults and constant hounding she's had to put up with. I think the way she's been treated is disgusting. Yes, Udon is indeed the place where US bombers took off for Vietnam. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Extra user page delete...

I don't think I tagged user:brianhe/scratch for deletion, can it be undeleted? Thanks in advance. — Brianhe (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Because I work from the category lists that are created by the tags, it would only have been possible to delete the pages you tagged so it appears that you probably tagged this page in error. If you'll confirm that you would like this page restored, I'll undelete it for you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, it must have been my mistake. If you can undelete the page, I'd appreciate it. Brianhe (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Malvern, Worcestershire

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Mhygelle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plaistow County Grammar School

Thanks for your offer of help, Kudpung. I have commented on the Editor assistance request that it seems I cannot use the image of the 1930 magazine - which is unfortunate. The article I am writing grew out of someone's request for information on famous former pupils. My attention was drawn to the Newham Sixth Form College article with its short list, and I began adding to it. I created Plaistow Grammar School and Plaistow County Grammar School with redirects, but I didn't do much to the NewVic article and it seemed to me that the pupils had nothing to do with NewVic. I then resolved to write an article for Plaistow County Grammar School. The main purpose was as a vehicle for the expanding list of former pupils but as I discovered more about the school the article grew. When the article is published I will delete the list that is on NewVic. I have a couple of paragraphs to add to "my" article when/if I receive a good reply from the Royal Air Force, otherwise I want to publish it as it is at present, and then add further former pupils as and when I research them. The NewVic article is incorrect - the school was a municipal school called Plaistow Secondary School (NOT Plaistow Municipal Secondary School), and this changed to Plaistow Grammar School in 1945 as a result of the 1944 Education Act (it did NOT change in 1944) - and I will make these changes shortly. Regarding "my" article, frustratingly I CANNOT find when the word County was added to the name and I CANNOT get other pupils to confirm precisely when 'Deo Confidimus' was introduced as the motto and when it was dropped for 'Power to the People'. I therefore have to use words like "subsequently" and "later". We (a group of former pupils) have the original admissions registers for 1926 to 1959 and, when digitised, these will be presented to the local authority for its archive. Your help with the article will be gratefully received, especially since you have done such a good job in polishing the NewVic article. Please, however, for now comment on my talk page rather than make the changes yourself. Many thanks. LenF54 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. I have the complete article in Word so please feel free to copyedit the one in my sandbox. I do not intend to get involved in edit wars over commas etc, but I do want to get the article "live" asap so I can get other former pupils to look at it and offer comment, criticism or additional material. Our yahoo group is aware of the article and making suggestions, which is where the idea for using the 1st edition of the school magazine came from. I do want to go through the current list of former pupils and add citations to a few, and I will do that to my Word copy. LenF54 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent work, and finding a usable image of the badge, but it looks like we are going to fall out. If the article cites a reason for changing from Secondary to Grammar (the Education Act of 1944) why shouldn't it show the reason for changing from Grammar to Comprehensive? The text is there in the Wikipedia article Comprehensive school, and I found and added the 10/70. It is all factual and relevant. I didn't feel the House colours were important but I can add them - although there won't be a citation of a source. I agree entirely on the examination "successes" and university - it is an area I had in mind to remove. The original list of notable former pupils on the Newham Sixth Form College article had only Price, Hayes, Jenkins and Glester - none of whom had articles or citations. No-one removed them from the list. In some cases I can provide citations; in some I cannot. I will still list the pupils. More later. LenF54 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have put the article live at Plaistow County Grammar School, amended the redirect at Plaistow Grammar School, amended the history of Newham Sixth Form College (with citations) and removed the list of alumni from there. The "former pupils" Group will consider alternative placement of the lists of headmasters, alumni and staff. If you can now add the grammar school's badge this will be warmly received. Thanks. LenF54 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Dalahäst's talk page.
Message added 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 dalahäst ^(talk) 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Lenmar123 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Hello again Kudpung, hope you are keeping well. I can see you are very busy with all the talk!! Just wanted to whizz the following by you as we are really trying to get things right with these drafts for publication. We have kept it very simple and factual and can 'build' on this further and in accordance with wiki rules, etc. Can you please take a look at these 2 drafts when you have a minute and advise.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amazingstevie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lenmar123 Many thanks in advance for your assistance. Marion. Lenmar123 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Amazingstevie: I don't actually see any potential for this article. It reads very promotional and would need completely reworking to clearly identify the subject - is it about a club, a publishing house, or a series of specific books? The huge list of names is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. Independent 3rd party sources are essential. The text appears to have been partially copied form one or more other sources.

User:Lenmar123 may possibly be notable, but there is nothing I can say until it has been fully referenced. It is also written in a very promotional tone. The text appears to have been partially copied form one or more other sources.

Please note that using material from other sources is a copyright violation, and the content on the user pages will shortly be deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

Hi, can you please cite what sections of Lexus RX (XU10) you believe are too closely paraphrased, so that they can be rewritten? Thank you for your help. MTan355 (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Update -- thanks for indicating which article appears to have the same text...I checked it out and it says "from Wikipedia" at the bottom, so it's a backwardscopy, not a copy violation. Thank you. MTan355 (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries - I have left another message on the article talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

I suspect it's probably obvious from a couple of my posts elsewhere, but I am seriously thinking about submitting a request for adminship at some point in the next six months. There are a number of reasons why I think I'd like to be an administrator. First, I have a strong interest in the deletion process and would like to partake in reviewing speedy nominations, prodded pages (after they've run their course), AfD listings, and so on. I also want to prevent this category from becoming backlogged too frequently. Yeah I know those are only two things (well, OK, the first I listed is a pretty broad category), but I'd love to help out in an administrative capacity someday. I'm not interested in admin coaching, and I don't see attaining adminship as the "be all, end all" of my time here. I have been contributing to Wikipedia as a registered user since 2008 and have made over 3000 edits throughout that time. I was offered a nomination for adminship by two editors back in 2009, but I refused. I want to hear your opinion — aside from having a higher edit count, is there anything I need to improve on before applying for adminship? I know I may not like the answer I get, but I'm ready to hear the honest truth. I'm sorry for burdening you with my questions, but I could use some advice. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi M&E. I am quite happy to do this. However, as this involves considerably more research than I do for simply voting at an RfA, it will take me a couple of days to complete. In the meantime, do read the essay I wrote at Advice for RfA candidates, and my RfA criteria. As always for these requests, I will be replying by email. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Happy to do this"? As in, reviewing my contributions? If you feel inclined to do so, then sure I'd appreciate it. I'd like some feedback from an experienced user. Thanks so much. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 07:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite happy :) My review also includes a full summary of your approach to editing, how you communicate with others, and what I estimate your chances are at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's very much what I was looking for, thanks. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Albert Ostman

Some believe the article Albert Ostman is not notable. What is your opinion?Msruzicka (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Albert Ostman. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

I replied to your comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Occupy_Marines_AfD JohnValeron (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. As a 'legend', I naturally have the page on my watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuke?

For tagging users involved in the IEP, I was running a bot (User:Manishbot). Unfortunately, I was using an older version of the Java framework, which wasn't too compatible with the new MediaWiki. So, one of the methods (the one that checks if a user account is registered or not) was malfunctioning, and this wasn't caught in the trial. This means that the bot has tagged lots of userpages which don't have a corresponding user. Note that not all of those pages are user-less, there are plenty of userpages that have a corresponding user (who proabably neglected to add anything to his/her userpage).
Basically, I want to ask if you could Special:Nuke all new pages (All new User: pages if possible) created by the bot. I'm asking you as you have already been involved in the IEP cleanup, and also you patrol NPP, so you may be more familiar with the tool. Thanks, ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 05:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I 'm not familiar with this tool. Also, having already spent over 200 hours on the IEP issues, I'm concentrating on other work until the problems with the actual management of the IEP have been resolved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've asked at ANI. Will those problems ever be resolved? I wonder... You know, I was actually thinking of writing a proposal that the relevant sections of the community be notified of every decision of the WMF, and be involved in the decision-making process. If you look at the IEP talkpage, there are whole bunches of stuff that we never were told about. A few weeks ago, User:MER-C found a proposal to dramatically change the structure of the GEP using a Mediawiki extension. The only reason we know is because he found that out, otherwise it would have been sprung on us sometime in the future (Just how the IEP was sprung on us!). Do you think that such a proposal is necessary, or would it be going overboard? ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't help. As I mentioned above, I have withdrawn from IEP issues until the problems of management have been resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's your choice! Cheers, ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 07:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

pitt lake gold find

Is the article Pitt Lake gold find notable?Msruzicka (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I would think so. Long article, well sourced, created in 2007. Notability never really disputed - no reason to dispute it now. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

Thanks for the referral.Blurbzone (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Blurbzone.

Seasons greetings

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, 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/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hi Kudpung, I'd have included a portion of Christmas pud, but I don't think it would suit the climate:) ϢereSpielChequers 23:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John of Damascus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John of Damascus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Swingrfd

I erred, but I need advice. I was trying to open a case for sockpuppetry, and when I typed in everything and clicked the "Save" button, it created an independent page instead of the investigation page. Can you tell me what I did wrong? Maile66 (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you want that stuff back that I deleted? I'll userfy it for you if you like - it does look as if you were doing some SPI research. Meanwhile I'll try to figure out what you did wrong. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if you could turn it into a SPI. I've never done one before, and I obviously bungled it. I went back to the SPI page and started (but stopped) to open one again - but all I see are instructions on how to fill out the various sections, and then the "Save" bottom at the bottom. I must not be understanding something. Maile66 (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't do that because I'm not familiar with case history. However, here is the data, and I suggest you simply try again. I know it's complicated, but if you follow the instgruxtions carefully, you should be OK:

Sockmaster: Swingrfd
Suspected socks: phill19, Padre Bill, gnickett1, jphill19usa
Your comment: See talk page on jphill19 where two other editors in June say this is a sockpuppet of jphill19usa. Several edirs by jphill19 to Quanah Parker, and the first one by swingrfd look like same user. Padre Bill and gnickett1 on Quanah Parker possibly same user.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It finally dawned on me. My error was in the first step, where you're only supposed to replace the word SOCKMASTER with the user name. I replaced everything in the little box. Live and learn. Thanks for your asst. Maile66 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Payne

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Payne, what is your rationale for deletion of the article? In the AfD, you simply wrote "The result was delete." without providing any analysis of the !votes and arguments presented in the AfD discussion. Clarification of your rationale for this AfD result would be most helpful. Please respond at the discussion page for the AfD page here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Payne. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It was a genuine error (perhaps I inadvertantly clicked on the wrong button). The result was of of course a clear keep, and I will restore the the article. Thanks again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas

	Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
	Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mega bangna (Napat we)

FYI, see also commons contribs/uploads: commons:Special:Log/Napat we. --Jeremyb (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion...

Remove? Nah, just moved it to my archives. I don't remove anything from my talkpage.

Anyhow, I still say I disagree with the academic, but I've looked at it again and I can see why you think it's notable. I really don't think so, but it's your call, of course.

The school- because I can't list it under A7, I listed under the "other"- somebody removed it; I would need to take it to AfD, I guess, but I won't bother. --Axel™ (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to take anything directly to AfD. If a page doesn't fit a CSD criterion, PROD it - if the PROD is removed by the creator without addressing the issue(s), it will then be taken to AfD. Remember though, that schools are rarely deleted, the usual practice is to redirect non notable schools (elementary) to the article about the school district (USA) or to the locality (rest of the world); high schools are almost always kept. WP:NPP is a crucial function at Wikipedia, and we need to get it right, and if you're not sure, just pass on to the next new page, someone else will tag what you leave. These tasks are much easier if you use the WP:Twinkle tools. If you need help with anything, don't hesitate to ask me here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

True- PROD is also a good alternate. I do use Twinkle, by the way. --Axel™ (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

A deleted article about myself...

Hello,

I recently was sent a link to a wikipedia page that was about me... I am in no way shape or form a significant figure, therefore I shouldn't have any wiki page made about me. Anyways, I saw that you deleted it, and I wanted to know if there was a way to see the page, to make sure that it wasn't harassing me or speaking of me in a negative nature. Also, is there a way to track where the article came from, and who made it? Thank you.

76.92.208.140 (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Sarah H

Hi. I can do most of this for you (except release the page to you), but to trace it I need to know either: the title of the article as it appeared in Wikipedia (probably your full name), the link you were sent, or the Wikipedia user name of the contributing editor who created the article. Note that all Wikipedia contributors operate either under their IP number, or under a user name - unless they have registered under their real name (which is extremely rare), we do not have their real names. Rest assured however, that if the page has been deleted, only admins (like me) or higher, are able to view deleted material. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The full name of the article is "Sarah Hennessey". The link that was sent to me was "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Hennessey" I cannot seem to find an IP number on the page. I would like to know the contents of what was said on the page, just to be sure.Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.136.106 (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. The article was extremely short (five lines) and had absolutely no egregious content - indeed, it spoke of you as '...one of many talented singers and performers in the school.' A referenced source was provided to this newspaper article. The article was created by an editor who appears to specialise in performing arts topics and their other edits are in order. I have the page title on my watchlist and if it is recreated I will make a decision, notwithstanding that if your notability is established per WP:BLP, and the content is perfectly neutral, there is little that can be done towards having it removed, although you would be able to edit any content yourself for accuracy. Kind regards, and season's greetings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello

→Στc. 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.

→Στc. 06:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from London...

...and a very Happy New Year, Kudpung! Thanks so much for all your help this year. All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Me again

The greeting below this one has something wrong on the coding. Any section placed beneath it floats the image out. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. He'd forgotten the closing '|}' --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes too!

	Yes, I wish I was there!
	Best wishes from the excitement and busy-ness of silly season Sydney! Some day, you and me, some local beer.} ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Jasig

Personal message from Rdjere: Hello! I got your comments on Jasig. I am trying to imporve the article. Based on my research, I do believe that Jasig is noteworthy given the sheer number of US universities using their sofware. I was able to find at least twenty (see my talk page for more details).Rdjere (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas Tree

Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for all the help this year. Merry Christmas and have a happy new year. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Abhijay's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 11:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, apparently I have requested for an Autopatrolled privilege, and this is still pending. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 11:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled is not a privilege, but I will take a look. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look. I think I'll recuse on this and let another admin decide. Be patient - don't forget it's holiday time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, i'll keep the impatience out of the way... Coz impatience aint such a good thing. But thanks for letting me know anyways. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 12:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC) :)

Kudpung, what was it that the IP who just vandalized my talk page just said?

Can't tell you, that's why I've revdel'd it. Nothing for you to worry about, just another troll (same one as before). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, no probs. It appears that me, Salvio giuliano are being attacked by a series of IP trolls whom I believe are being used as socks. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 14:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad Head

Hi, and thanks for your messages about Bad Head. The first instance I tagged was, as I remember, an incoherent string of words that made no sense at all; that is arguably vandalism, but I don't think it's completely wrong to say it was A1 as well. If I missed an attack page, that's not good at all. :-( I'm really sorry about that! I think I usually get the speedy tags right, especially with attck pages, but I may need to slow down a bit. Thanks again for the heads-up. --bonadea contributions talk 13:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The first instance was a short but coherent sentence ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: MAK law firm

Hi there, I wish you could tell me the reasons why you let the article MAK law firm deleted so fast, I don't even have time to defend it. Thanks in advance — Rammaum^talk_stalk 14:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The reasons why it was deleted are in the message(s) on your talk page. If you believe the article would comply with our strict policies and criteria for companies, you can start a new draft in your user space. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point - it was deleted under multiple criteria. In fact I did not delete it - my recommendfation was carried out by a second administrator. The reasons were:

• as an article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD WP:A7.
• because it only promotes an entity, person or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. See CSD WP:G11.

There are a couple more that can be added, such as WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTABILITY. Companies must comply with our notability criteria at WP:ORGKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Nolelover's talk page.
Message added 11:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 11:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Another bump...yell at me if you're watching. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 11:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

please help me blocking user

Raqib nizami (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)From the beginning i am noticing that there are a group of editors whose goal is to praise Muhammad bin abd al wahhab and removing some undeniable fact from NPOV.First of all he is not a hero or role model of islam.in fact 90% of the muslim(wether Sunni or Shiya) population hate him and criticize his works.According to thousands books of historic references and thousands Fatwa written by Eminent Muslim Scholars,Shaikhul-Ulama,,Shaikhul-hadith,Shaikhul-Islam,Mujaddids "Muhammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab" is a Kafir(disbeliever),Murtad(apostate),kharji(those who went out),Dajjali fitna.Not only that but also he is considered by non Muslim Scholars,writers, historians to be the birth place of all controversial matter(now a days referred to Islam because of him) extremist,terrorist,creed of evil etc.Such a controversial person need proper introduction which should be full of ref and from NPOV.but most of the editors are trying to ignore the fact and by baseless editing they are trying to portrait him as a Revival/Great scholar/reformer of Islam!They are not able to face the ugly truth because they are trained to deny it.I am giving a proper short intro and assessment part which i established by various sources but not it seems its not quiet enough.please help me by blocking these users-MelbourneStar,ClaretAsh,Khateeb88,Sanoseattle to prevent vandalism.

(talk page stalker) I think it's you that will be blocked because you are edit warring and not adhering to a neutral point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) And the users you have named are respected and established Wikipedia editors - this looks more like a dispute than a question of blocking vandals. I suggest you head to WP:DRN. →Στc. 21:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Need assistance, please

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at MelbourneStar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 06:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

here to be exact. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 06:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung

I have absolutely no idea what to do which is why i sought assistance which Melbourne Star kindly provided. Can this not be done by an admin? Out of curiousity i just had a look at the bio of Deep Purple (Ritchie Blackmore's former band), and noticed yet more examples, User:Lane edits Ritchie Blackmore, French actresses (Renée Adorée) and Tennessee politics (Tennessee House of Representatives), the previous editor, User:Laod edits Ritchie Blackmore, French actresses (Emmanuelle Béart) and Tennessee politics {Bob Corker the same page that two editors i previously listed}. Thats maybe 15 editors i have come across on the same three subjects of Blackmore, French actresses, and Tenneessee politics.GrampsSydney (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Admins can summarily block a clear, simple case of sockpuppetry that they are familiar with, but this one is more complex and will most probably need a WP:Checkuser investigation. Please go to WP:SPI to file a regular sockpuppet report and follow the instructions carefully; the SPI clerk will then decide what to do. If you get stuck, ask me again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your assistance.GrampsSydney (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Art Pope

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Art Pope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: New Page Patrolling

Thanks for the information. I'll take it into account when I patrol new pages in the future. --AGreenEarth (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move result

You recently closed the RM discussion we had on moving Parenthood to Parenthood (1989 film). I appreciate the help, but there is one slight issue. During the discussion it was suggested that we change the proposed name to Parenthood (film) dropping the 1989, since there are no other notable films named Parenthood. I attempted to update the proposed name, but perhaps it didn't occur in time before you closed the discussion. Are you able to make this quick adjustment, or should I start a new discussion? Thanks, GoneIn60 (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears this was resolved by Vegaswikian. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Grove Primary

Been there. Done that.Bought the T-Shirt. Unfortunately when others revert such edits there is only one way forward. AFD. Sad but true. So here we are. Fmph (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, such reverting isn't quite so commonplace. Also, to save all the unnecessary bureaucracy, if you are deeply concerned that such articles must be deleted, you could consider PRODiing them. As most school articles are created by WP:SPA anyway, who never come back, the articles will be procedurally deleted at the simple click of an admin's mouse without all the discussion and any further research or even needing to open the page concerned. . Again, it's quite rare for such PROD deletions to be contested, and if they are, a refund is just as easy, and then the thing can be sent to AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I did consider that but felt on reflection that AFD was the simpler course of action. Fmph (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User_talk:Egg Centric, appeared to be a meaningless template and has been reverted or removed - or possibly just mocked. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia and personalising messages, assuming good faith, and so on. Thank you. Egg Centric 14:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)