User talk:Kudpung: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:31, 17 August 2019

Hi, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to know why your page was deleted, please read THIS first.

Online now? It is 10:22 PM where this user lives near Udon Thani, Thailand

Paid editors, company staff, PR agents

If you are receiving compensation in any form for your edits, or if your article has already been deleted, I will be happy to tell you what you did wrong, but under no circumstances will I use my administrator authority to undelete it, or provide any editing help.

Talking to others

Not a personal attack or anything but your treatment of some new users seems kind of harsh. Not that you are being mean or anything but maybe you could be a little bit friendlier. Just wanted to let you know.

I tend to become a tiny bit less friendly with users who refuse to take advice when all they do is disrupt. Perhaps you could have the courtesy to observe our guidelines. Better still, register an account so we can see on what experience you base your opinions on. Or are you simply editing without logging in.. ?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhilendra Sahu

Hi @Kudpung: Can you please take a look at the Afd and then take at the new Draft:Akhilendra Sahu. Possibly a paid editor who is desperate to get his article back in, or half-heartedly started it and decided not to complete it. I find it exceedingly hard to determine the motives of people without speaking to them. scope_creep^Talk 12:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep, salted and the IP creator of the new draft blocked for block evasion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kudpung. scope_creep^Talk 12:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung

Can you reply to me as soon as possible? Thanks. BamZ412 (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checkin

[1] ——SerialNumber54129 07:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

????? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

42.200.154.50

user:42.200.154.50 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done CLCStudent (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

In the media: Politics starts getting rough

Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same school created again

Hi Kudpung, remember this school which you redirected to its locality, the same user has recreated it but with a comma separating location this time. There is a draft still there too. If you could have a look that would be really helpful, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

government college, bida

why did you redirected, this article of school, Government College, Bida, To article of city Bida. pls revert Government College, Bida, Back. Pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wazirinbida (talk • contribs) 19:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure you sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). I can see you have also created List of Government College Bida alumni which is not needed - most are non-notable and upon looking at some of the alumni with articles, they are lacking sources to verify their attendance Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civility in RfA discussions

Kudpung, I've generally found you to be a reasonable contributor to WP and, having gone through my RFA at roughly the same time as you was very supportive of your proposals for review of the system at the time. However, I find myself puzzled by some of the behaviour you've been exhibiting at RFA lately in that it is entirely at odds with the general idea that RFA should be more civil. In fact your behaviour towards GregJackP is something I would take a novice editor to task over. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? I believe it's time to get RfA cleaned up once and for all. I have a long institutional memory of all things RfA, and I'm not likely to castigate anyone who does not have a history of incivility. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eight years in and it's pretty much the same as it was when you started thinking about reforming RfA. Perhaps it doesn't need changing? I was extremely disappointed that you of all people assumed bad faith on my part in my oppose of Bradv. Were you going by a history of problem behaviour? I don't think so. Are we so desperate to tackle "incivility" and "trolling" that we're seeing a problem when it isn't always there? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through some of his recent contributions, and I believe (No offense at all, Kudpung) that he may just be a "get off my lawn" type of person. He's not intentionally being confrontational, it's just his nature. Squeeps 10 16:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squeeps10. maybe no offence intended, but Wikipedia is very sensitive. New users often see admins being baited all the time so they think it's cool to join the sport, even if we have given them advice in good faith. Because they are new, we're not allowed to warn them or block them. We can only hope they will grow up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfA content moved to talkpage

Kudpung: was there a community discussion on moving comments to talkpages like this and this? Has it been documented in a guideline or otherwise? It seems to be standard practice now, but I'm not sure how/when it happened. - ☆ Bri (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bri, I've commented/voted on almost every RfA since 3 April 2010, and very closely followed all discussions, particularly since starting WP:RFA2011. I don't recall there ever having been a consensus. It's just one of those things that gradually recently became a trend. As you can see from the thread above, some people have a very different perception of what constitutes incivility and/or disingenuous voting. The net result however, is that RfA is now degenerating into more of a cesspit than it ever was. and one is accused of bad faith if one even dares to mention it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Followup is on my talkpage; another party has commented there. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New editor

Hi @Kudpung: Can you please have a chat with new editor User:Lqqhh. He/she doesn't seem not to understand the need for references. They seems to assume that adding small blocks of prose to articles don't need to be verified. On top of that they don't seem to notice in their small edit war that they removing a quote, which has a good Telegraph reference. They have 200 odd edits and I'm assuming that a number of them are not sourced. The content they are adding is good content. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep, I don't really want to get involved in this for fear of making a 'super vote' on what they are doing. A cursory scan of the history tells me you are probably right and you are more than adequately experienced to handle it without an admin coming in like an elephant in a china shop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung That great. I hate spending valuable time having to deal with these kind of people, particularly if they are not a student or in academia they tend to have their own agenda, and its not Wikipedias agenda. As the years go on, they seem to get more and more bolshie, one of every 6 or 8 people that I encounter, that are newish. I don't know how to deal with them, a quiet word doesn't work now. You end up sending them a warning and it makes no difference until they're blocked. I'll see what I can do but I'll end up posting them to the Edit Warrning board. scope_creep^Talk 13:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should make a more than cursory scan. I understand perfectly well the need for references. Had I added any information at all to the article, a request for references would have made sense. This user thinks that I didn't notice that I removed a quote? I made an edit specifically to remove it, and explained why in the edit summary. The user has now undone several other edits I have made, for ludicrous reasons. There is a problem here, and it's certainly not with me. Lqqhh (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep, I think that's probably what you'll have to do. I'm loath to ban raw beginners, but it's possibly what I might end up having to do when they start throwing their weight about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 322: / Line 322: @@
 :{{U|scope_creep}}, I don't really want to get involved in this for fear of making a 'super vote' on what they are doing. A cursory scan of the history tells me you are probably right and you are more than adequately experienced to handle it without an admin coming in like an elephant in a china shop. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung#top|talk]]) 13:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 ::{{U|Kudpung}} That great. I hate spending valuable time having to deal with these kind of people, particularly if they are not a student or in academia they tend to have their own agenda, and its not Wikipedias agenda. As the years go on, they seem to get more and more bolshie, one of every 6 or 8 people that I encounter, that are newish. I don't know how to deal with them, a quiet word doesn't work now. You end up sending them a warning and it makes no difference until they're blocked. I'll see what I can do but I'll end up posting them to the Edit Warrning board. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 13:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
-::You should make a more than cursory scan. I understand perfectly well the need for references. Had I added any information at all to the article, a request for references would have made sense. This user thinks that I didn't notice that I removed a quote? I made an edit specifically to remove it, and explained why in the edit summary. The user has now undone several other edits I have made, for ludicrous reasons. There is a problem here, and it's certainly not with me. [[User:Lqqhh|Lqqhh]] ([[User talk:Lqqhh|talk]]) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
+:::You should make a more than cursory scan. I understand perfectly well the need for references. Had I added any information at all to the article, a request for references would have made sense. This user thinks that I didn't notice that I removed a quote? I made an edit specifically to remove it, and explained why in the edit summary. The user has now undone several other edits I have made, for ludicrous reasons. There is a problem here, and it's certainly not with me. [[User:Lqqhh|Lqqhh]] ([[User talk:Lqqhh|talk]]) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
+:::{{U|scope_creep}}, I think that's probably what you'll have to do. I'm [[WP:BITE|loath to ban raw beginners]], but it's possibly what I might end up having to do when they start throwing their weight about. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung#top|talk]]) 16:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)