User talk:Kudpung/Archive Apr 2013

Questions about adding "Garnet Capital Advisors" article

Hi,

I am trying to figure out the best way to go about having an organization, in this case Garnet Capital Advisors (which is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles such as "Loan Sale", "Mission Capital Advisors", etc. I feel as though it would be a great addition to Wikipedia and would like some advice as to best go about it because it seems as though doing it myself might create conflict of interest issues. Any advice/direction would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnetcap2013 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French translation

Hello. I was on Wikipedia:Translators available and notice that you were on the list for French to English translators and wondered if you could translate fr:Pierre d'Orléans (1845-1919) to Pierre, Duke of Penthièvre? Thank you.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Tucoxn got this.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor L. Bennett

Hello. I'm new to all this so please pardon me if I'm violating any rules of Wikipedia etiquette by contacting you here. The above article on a very accomplished young photographer is the subject of an AfD for the second time. When the original article was deleted there was a lot of bad blood between two editors and the creator of the article. The same two are calling for the deletion of the article's second incarnation, and I have serious doubts about their independence and am asking other Wikipedia editors without any history in this debate to take a look and see if the article can be saved. I am a big admirer of this young lady's work and think she fully qualifies for a listing in Wikipedia, but the two editors involved are quite immovable in their views. Would you be able to take the time to look in on the discussion? It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eleanor_L._Bennett Thanks for your time.Coriander2 (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understand your concerns. However, to keep or not to keep is always a community consensus and having reviewed the article and its various deletion discussions, I see that some very experienced editors have voiced their opinions. As you have asked my advice I will recuse myself from voting on the current AfD, but I think you will have to accept the communitýs decision if the outcome is for deletion. I hasten to add that any claims of conspiracy to delete are misplaced - nobody among the regular editors here is familiar with Bennet, but many of the participants are very well versed in our inclusion policies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. My fear is not that the two editors involved are familiar with Bennett but that they have had a flaming row with one of the original creators of the article, whom they may see as Bennet's 'agent', and hence in my view they are not the best people to make a neutral decision on this subject. If you read back through the history you will see that the exchanges became very heated and personalised. Then as soon as an article on the same person was posted by somebnody else they were on to it straight away, suggesting all kinds of conspiracy theories about the new creator. I find it hard to accept that they have no extra agenda where this subject is concerned, although of course I could be wrong about that, but I think justice would be seen to be done if somebody else (not SudoGhost or TokyoGirl) made the final decision re deletion. Thanks for your time. Coriander2 (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't brought it to my notice, there is a chance that I would have seen the AfD anyway and left my opinion there (what that would have been is now moot however). I can only reiterate that on the present AfD, comments up to now have been made by some highly experienced editors and among them a very respected admin. The final decision will be made by a non involved admin who will evaluate the consensus based on objective voting that takes into account our criteria for notability and nothing else - 'I like it/him/her' or 'I don't like it/him/her' votes are not given much weight. Apart from the deletion review, there is no 'higher authority'; all our content issues are discussed and resolved by all and any contributors to Wikipedia.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news

WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention

News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag

Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea

Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

Technology report: A flurry of deployments

Comments left at RfA

Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

It was sent a few weeks ago, so you may have to dig for it. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]