User talk:Kudpung/Archive Oct 2018

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-10-01/From_the_editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Jake Mason

Many years ago you salted Jake Mason after multiple speedy deletions of a TV producer. I have created a page for a notable musician who has the same name. The two people appear unconnected. Could you possibly unsalt this title so I can mave Jake Mason (musician) there as the primary topic. Thanks. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Kudpung can't help at the moment, but let me have a look. Worm^TT(talk) 13:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme:, I've removed the salting, it's been a while so hopefully it will be ok. I've looked at the article and the notability seems borderline to me, you might want to see if you can find a few more sources! Worm^TT(talk) 13:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Duffbeerforme and Worm That Turned:,, I am currently on Wikileave and do not have access to admin tools. . I would suggest however, that you find several more substantial references from truly in-depth sources. The one you have provided appears to be basically an interview and a promotion for a release. The claim to an award nomination also does not appear to be covered. As a BLP it's likely to be slated for deletion when it goes to mainspace even though you are autopatrolled. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Primary source for nomination [1]. A good independent source will soon follow and will be added to the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. There seems to be 2-3 sources anticipating his solo career, so I'm sure there's an article here. As Kudpung points out, it's likely to end up as a plausible deletion, but I'm sure you can manage that. As for Kudpung, hope you're well. Feel free to drop me a line :) Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have pinged you in an ANI thread

Hi Kudpung, I hope this finds you in good spirits. I realize that you are no longer very active on Wikipedia, and that you have resigned as an administrator, however I have pinged you in an ANI thread as you had participated in the two previous threads about the same issue. The current thread is here (unless it has been archived by the time you see this message): WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Francis_Schonken STILL edit-warring on issue he was just blocked six weeks for. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Lehrter Strasse

Seit langem, habe ich mich immer beabsichtigt , einen en.Wiki-Artikel für diese berühmte Straße in BLN zu schaffen, wo ich einst einer ihrer Bewohner war, in der Nähe der Propellerkneipe (eigentlich eine privat Wohnung in Wilmersdorf), Oscars Stahlfabrik, Mehlwums Lagerhaus für Kaugummis, der Kulturzentrum, der COMA Folterkammer, und der Lehrtergefãngnis. Wenn jemand mich kontaktieren möchte, um bei diesem Projekt zu helfen, wäre ich sehr dankbar. Bitte erstellen Sie einen Wikipedia-Account entweder auf en.Wiki oder de.Wiki, wenn Sie keinen haben, dann sende mir per Wikipedia email dein Benutzername mit, damit wir E-Mails austauschen können. Danke vielmals im voraus. (Benutzer mit der BLN IP-Nummer bitte hier klicken).

I have always been intending to create an en.Wiki article for this famous street in BLN where I was once one of its residents near the Propeller Bar (actually a private flat in Wilmersdorf), Oscar's steel factory, Mehlwum's chewing gum warehouse, the culture centre, and the COMA torture chamber and the prison. If any one would like to contact me to help with this project, I would be much obliged. Please create a Wikipedia account if you do not have one so that we can exchange emails. Many thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Kudpung:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 06:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I am glad you are not completely gone from wikipedia. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Nothing to see here. Let's move on

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (angle). In addition, your comment about what Eli355 did or didn't do at an RfA is completely inappropriate as to whether an article should be kept or not; please strike or remove it. Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Are you aware of the English expression 'People who live in glass houses...' ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC) You're committing a tu quoque fallacy. You're completely ignoring the substance of my concern by pointing out a prior bad action of myself – one which isn't even all that parallel. Perhaps you would agree to a 24-hour block as I had, then? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Doesn't look like you "agreed" to a block. Looks like FlightTime reported you at ANI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive988#Personal attacks, and then Cullen328 blocked you, stating "I have blocked the editor for 24 hours and made it clear that this behavior is unacceptable. I certainly hope that it does not resume." -- Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC) @Softlavender: Thanks for pinging people that really don't need to weigh in on the original matter here. The point was that Kudpung responded to me saying "You did this and it was bad" with "Well you once did something, too, and got blocked for it." Since that was something which I was blocked for, I facetiously suggested that Kudpung accept a block as well in an attempt to point out that he's not responding appropriately. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Again, it doesn't look like you "accepted" a block a few months ago, you were issued one for repeated personal attacks and insisting the target deserved it, and now you are templating a long-term well-respected regular and admin (recently resigned). Perhaps those editors would like to weigh in on this. Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I never said I accepted one. Here, "...as I had" means that I had the block, as in "...as I had issued to me", not "...as I had accepted". This seems clear since people (almost?) never just accept blocks on their own. And if Her Royal Highness the Queen of France had behaved so poorly in regards to WP:AGF, I would have templated her too. If you think Kudpung can't respond himself and needs your help, then please respond to the substance of the complaint, and not going on about how well-respected he is. For crissakes, this was a clear misstep that I issued a simple caution for, and now you've helped manage to turn it into some big thing that it's really not. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC) The difference is, Deacon, that Softlavender, with whom I have also shared differences in the past, is a peer, and is supporting me here, and has some excellent photos of a mountain whose view soares up on the skyline from the bottom of my garden in France. I suggest you take a glass of really smooth Côtes du Ventoux AOC and rethink your Latin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC) You're continuing to derail the thread. Please just respond to the complaint and stop acting like a jerk. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) You're welcome to report it to ANI if you think it is a sanctionable offense. If you do not think it is a sanctionable offense, then why didn't you just address the comment at the AfD, rather than deciding to violate WP:DTTR and template an editor and recently resigned admin of 12 years and 97,000 edits? Do you think it was a block-worthy comment? If not, then why are you implying that Kudpung was out of line to point out your block less than three months ago, for edits and comments that were clear personal attacks (which you are still making, above)? Softlavender (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Striking a comment rather than simply editing it out is a disingenuous way of ensuring that common insults are read - and understood. And BTW, please don't refactor other users' edits on my talk page, or anywhere else for that matter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC) @Softlavender:, you know full well that WP:DTTR is only an essay and you can't "violate" an essay, therefore this is a deliberate attempt at deception and intimation that grossly violates the five pillars of WP, particularly as you are "helping" an experienced editor who clearly does not need it, especially since as we all know he is part of an Illuminati-esque cabal of admins here who can't be touched, and as such you really should be assisting the editor here who clearly needs it, as they are young, inexperienced, and perhaps a little volatile, but that is certainly understandable with these circumstances and therefore I demand you strike your comments, apologize and accept a 24 hour block to reflect on your actions. Sincerely - L'enfant du Loup 10:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC) (btw - Kudpung, I hear the 2012 Ventoux has a beautiful mix of plum and raspberry with a hint of chocolate! Thanks for reminding me, I need to pick up a bottle. Cheers!) Editors quote essays as commonly accepted community behavioral guidelines all the time and talk about violating them. Of course you can violate a behavioral-guideline essay. Right now you are violating WP:DEADHORSE. I have not been "helping" Kudpung, I have been responding to the bizarre behavior of another editor. And if you think Kudpung is "part of an Illuminati-esque cabal of admins here who can't be touched", you clearly have missed some of the major wiki events of the past two months. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC) @Softlavender: I think you clearly have missed that I was joking... (my entire post was a single, run-on sentence? nevermind, my bad). Anyway, I fully support Kudpung's comments and his position in general at RfA and I agree with your comments here. I think DV posts some strange demands, is a little too quick with the hot-headed replies and has been carrying a weird grudge against Kudpung for awhile now. But, it sure makes for interesting WP-TV viewing though! ;-) Cheers - wolf 09:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Break Let's try this again. First, Softlavender, while your intentions might be noble, the effect of trying to rush to Kudpung's defense has really just been to muddy the waters, so I'm asking that you please just stay out and let him respond directly. Second, Kudpung, your comment, "...If it is supposed to be humorours like his 'science' antics at RfA, then it has failed miserably..." (emphasis added) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (angle) is very inappropriate, and I'm asking you to strike it. It's inappropriate because it runs afoul of WP:AGF, and it's meant to prejudice others against keeping the article based on your accusations of misbehavior, and not on the merits of the article itself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Kudpung has read your request, and has obviously declined to strike his comment. You may not dictate who posts on Kudpung's talkpage, although he may. You also cannot dictate that he respond in any way or form to your message(s) here. If you feel this violates a policy or guideline, you are free to take that up on a noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC) I don't believe you are qualified to be commenting Deacon or even evoking AGF. I'll derail threads on my talk page to my heart's content - I've made nearly as many posts on it as you have total edits, and Softlavender is one of the people who is welcome here anytime. There's been worse harrassement here - it's what admins get for their efforts , and I'm pretty good at dealing with it, without even resorting to blocking the culprits. or even taking them to Aunty ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ANI notice There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI

This. Thought you should know... Cheers - wolf 17:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Wolf, along with his recent edit summary which should be suppressed, this is another issue that appears to demonstrate that he does not intend to maintain a collaborative spirit. Refactoring others' comments is a big no no. I would have blocked by now, but even if I had my tools, I wouldn't be able to due to WP:INVOLVED - that's another thing admins have to bear. I think it's best just to drop it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all your comments, including the bit about "dropping it". I reverted once because I disagreed with him not only changing someone else's comments, but doing it on yet another someone else's talk page. He reverted me, but I had no interest in getting involved any further beyond that (not going to get in an edit war over something that doesn't involve me). I figured I'd let you know about it and move on. But, with that said, I see that someone else has since reverted him again, restoring your comment.

Funny how things work on WP. Sometimes people pop out of the blue to support you, sometimes they pop out of blue just to lose their shit all over you. >cough!<R>cough!<f>cough!<A>cough!< Sorry... nasty chest cold. Anyway, take it easy. Cheers - wolf 01:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wolf, defecating on admins is a sport that some enjoy - even prolific contributors to FA. (some of whom have the Guiness Book of Records for the longest block logs). That, and the constant drama at RfA are the reasons why editors of the right calibre are not in a hurry to want to be admins nowadays. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review backlog

Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Backlog_chart_2 might also be of use to you (less frequently updated but has no data excluded, so shows the full history that I have of the backlog to late 2016). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Remind me...

Kudz - my brain is overloaded - did you tell me that when an article in the NPP queue was marked for deletion it should or should not be marked as reviewed? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Oh this... Well, we decided a while back that you should if you were willing to follow it on PROD/CSD logs, and that AfDs always should, but that was to get them out of the way of people because the 'nominated for deletion' filter didn't work. We need to have another discussion about this now that you can filter out Deletion tagged articles, and also request that the page curation tools NOT auto-review deletion tagged articles if we decide that way. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that normally when using Curation, a deletion tag automatically marks the page as patrolled so that it doesn't get patrolled again, but the tag leaves a 'no index' tag on the page. Now I'm not sure that happens when using Twinkle - aye there's the rub, we should all be using Curation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: Yes, Twinkle DOES auto-patrol articles when tagging them with CSD (not sure about AfD ect, but I assume so). I've been meaning to poll people on this since the filtering for 'nominated for deletion' was recently added, as I think we can do better by having these pages (CSD and PROD) not marked as 'reviewed'. Atsme's question just reminded me. See: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Should_we_stop_marking_articles_tagged_with_CSD_and_PROD_as_'reviewed'_now_that_we_can_filter_them_in_the_NewPagesFeed?. If the community agrees, then I'll request that the curation tool and Twinkle both be updated to not automatically mark pages as patrolled when placing CSD/PRDO tags. I can then also very simply 'unreview' all the articles currently tagged with CSD and PROD by filtering 'reviewed' and 'Nominated for Deletion' in the New Page Feed and running through them. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I'll comment at the reviewer's page. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Managing COI

Thanks for your comment. I am aware of the COI guidelines and have, all along, tried to keep those in mind. There is not a single statement in the page that is not referenced in verifiable third-party sources, both published or available on the web or both. A robot could have written this. However, it does not seem likely that the Wikipedia community or at least some individuals within it will ever accept this page on those grounds. I therefore plan to delete it. Let someone else give it a try. Pmuehlen (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Pmuehlen: Replied on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง: The notoriety criteria contain much that leaves room for subjective interpretation. Importantly, Wikipedia's arbiters should have some minimal knowledge of and experience in the fields covered in a given subject's page. This is relevant because you cite Bradv. As you are aware,Bradv famously missed some years ago that Donna Strickland, recipient of the 2018 physics Nobel Prize, was, by any measure, already notable in 1985. The explanations on his Wikipedia page demonstrate that robotic application of rules is not necessarily good. Pmuehlen (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pmuehlen: sorry to butt in, but Bradv carried out rather more checks than you yourself carried out on the draft article about Donna Strickland. From the sources that I have examined, it appears that you (Pmuehlen) did not take any steps at all to approve or move forward the draft article about Donna Strickland when it was submitted. You admit here that Strickland was "already notable in 1985", so, Pmuehlen, why were you so remiss in not making sure that a Wikipedia article about her was approved? MPS1992 (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pmuehlen: Those of us working in the field of article quality, or accepting or rejecting submissions of new articles, are generally very experienced in Wikipedia notability criteria and there is very little room for 'subjective interpretation'; Wikipedia is a big machine, it's got over 5 million articles and it's been going for 18 years which is more than enough to get it right. Reviewers don't need to have any subject knowledge in order to apply these criteria. Citing the Strickland affair and Bradv here is a straw man argument, but you can read all about it in several articles, including one from Bradv himself, in the next issue of The Signpost due to be released in the next day or two.

We understand your disappointment in your draft not being accepted for now and If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on your talk page where I had replied. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)