User talk:Kudpung/Archive Nov 2018

Welcome back

Glad to see you're an admin again! That's all, have a good day.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back too! Deryck C. 10:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Just saw this in the SP, adding another "welcome back" to this list. 14:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• I see you are back. I've not gotten into the details of why you dropped the bit to begin with, but hope all is well on the other side of the globe. I'm barely here myself, on the fence about, well, most everything. Hard to get emotionally invested as of late, suffering from a severe case of apathy. Anyway, hope real life is treating you well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, nice to see you around. I handed my tools in and took a break for a couple of months purely due to health and domestic issues, but the ill spirited crowd naturally made a song and dance about my ressyoping - which had nothing to do with my absence. I still won't be very active for a while. Take care yourself. Best, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I'm glad you are back too, Chris. And I can echo Dennis's comment about apathy. Everything seems like swimming upstream in the Salmon River. John from Idegon (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Signature change

I have changed the appearance of my signature. Barbara ✐✉ 10:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Hello Kudpung, how have you been? You granted me reviewer rights back in August for a 3 months period. Subject to re-evaluation. I hope I have given a (very small) contribution to the new pages review backlog, and I see that the needs are higher now. If you could evaluate those few articles I reviewed and give me feedback, that would be great! If you deem that I can continue to have the reviewing tools, I plan to continue to use them, by continuing to assist in reducing the backlog, so you can grant them for a longer period now. Best! --1l2l3k (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

CSD

F.Y.I., I see you were involved with Salina Vortex Corporation a few months ago. I just tagged Salina vortex corporation. MB 01:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

MB: already deleted by another admin. I have salted the title. This is a persistent spammer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ITM wording

I made a change at ITM that may have caused a glitch in your intended reading. Could you re-check, especially and to convince declared paid editors that despite the rules, their work is nevertheless unethical in combination with naming a declared paid editor in the same writeup? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Worcester history page

I'm having some trouble with a hostile editor who seems to have taken a dislike to my work. I'd appreciate some help with this if you have a moment. Jim Killock (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

JimKillock please provide me with a link to the diffs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, at the moment it is discussion on the talk page, revolving around whether or not to separate "Notes" and "Citations. PBS removed this distnction, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Worcestershire&oldid=868370844#Notes

I have been trying to persuade him (I assume he) that this is a bad idea, but he is being quite aggressive and demanding about reinstating his preference for having no title division.

He's also making no doubt valid points about article length but I am worried that I'm going to find my slow, detailed but hopefully relevant work building up these pages dealt with in a rather arbitrary fashion. I'd like to see a bit of patience and balance applied.

At the end of the day the History of Worcestershire page is a quite low traffic page, compared with Worcestershire for instance so I think doing things slowly is ok. Jim Killock (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the specific edit / diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Worcestershire&diff=prev&oldid=868362387 Jim Killock (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Lehrterstrasse, Kudpung.

Unfortunately Winged Blades of Godric has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

This is draftifiable stuff. Non-working references; weirdly complex (autotranslated??) sentences and unsourced paragraphs.

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

∯WBG^converse 12:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Shall I remove your Reviewer, and Autopatrolled flags now, or shall we muse over it until I have finished the article? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove the flags and I will see you at AN.∯WBG^converse 12:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? Got out of bed the wrong side this morning? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have the autopatrolled hat on and 18 hours after creation, 2 of the 5 references are null. One is reliable enough and two are to the same piece which is quasi-reliable. Vast portions are un-sourced. The single sentence over this section is what I described as weirdly complex. Notability is not very evident, till now.

These are all issues that shall be screened at NPR.

I might have tagged the article and moved on but I generally un-review autopatrols (which are not upto the mark) and let them note my concerns. And, in case you believe that my actions were egregiously bad, feel free to ask for outsider-opinion of my comments and un-review.∯WBG^converse 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

About time you wrote some articles yourself. And get your math right. I moved the article from my user space less than five hours ago. Stop stalking my edits - that's room for harassement. Go do something useful for a change, like smartening up User:Winged Blades of Godric/The rise and fall of a Wikimedian--Paid editing and Governments so that it can finally be published. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, meh. If you think that I am stalking your edits, AN is that-away. At any case, five hours or whatever is not a small amount of time. ∯WBG^converse 13:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kudpung. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Op-ed

You probably have noticed I moved the content to User:Kudpung/Blog per the discussion you had with Pine. I would like to see it in issue 12 if possible. Maybe a new title: "Suppose they gave a war blog and nobody came?" ☆ Bri (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Bri - no time, no energy. I've spent a lot of time on this month's issue. Can't do any more. You're welcome do do what you like with it. FYI Pine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I will move it to Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion for issue 12 and putting my title on it. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Bri, Whatever you think best. This is going to be a meagre issue anyway, Deadline is expired in 4 hours, and you didn't extend the publishing time just to wait on more content. There's nothing from Tilman. And I certainly don't see anyone suddenly filling all the columns at the last minute. I think we all have to agree that our efforts over the past few months haven't worked out as expected despite a lot of help from Nøkkenbuer. If it were up to me I would say include the article from DiplomatTesterMan and then get the issue out tomorrow or at the latest on the 28th, otherwise the next one, if here is one, won't be out until well into the first week or even the second week of January what will all the upcoming holidays, and I really don't have time to contribute anymore. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Phra Wimondhammaphan

Hi Kudpung. Would you be willing to evaluate the suitability of Phra Wimondhammaphan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? The creator has a COI. I don't see anything on Google, but I can't understand Thai. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89, There is hardly likely to be a COI - the monk is dead. However, there is a possible COPYVIO from https://pantip.com/topic/38272842, but it looks very likely this may have been lifted from the Wikipedia article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe COI isn't the right term – the author is a disciple of the monk. That was written after the article and probably by the same person who write the article. This is far from anything I would be able to judge notability on. Do you think the monk is notable? — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 12:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)