Jump to content

User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug 2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same school created again

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Civility in RfA discussions

[edit]

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. Squeeps10 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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_creepTalk 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_creepTalk 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]
Kudpung Thanks. The person is a pretty decent editor but he/she has went posted an edit war entry on me at the edit board after I removed several of their updates including removing a referenced entry in a FA article. See what happens. scope_creepTalk 16:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung I agree with you. I think the whole thing of interacting with new users is fraught with difficulties particularly if they are not following the rules and particularly if they are intransigent. There doesn't seems to be particular best practice article anywhere, that you would perhaps find a commercial organisation in a similar situation that describes what to do. I believe applying warnings is an easy way to go, but it should be right at the end of the conversation, well after a quiet word by one of more people has taken place. scope_creepTalk 17:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your badge should you choose to use it

[edit]

Kudpung helped to make Myth of the clean Wehrmacht a good article.

I think you deserve the badge. Should you chose to use it. Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

In this comment, you appear to be threatening to ban me. Our entire interaction history is you asking mea rather aggressive question, which happened after you made this threat. So perhaps you could clarify why you are threatening to ban me, and what authority you have to do that, if any. Lqqhh (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lqqhh, There is absolutely no such threat whatsoever. Nor are there any warnings. However, the sum total of many of your edits and the tone of your edit summaries is possibly already more than sufficient for an admin to apply sanctions if they were so disposed. If I were to warn you, you would receive a specific message on your talk page. One thing is for sure though, with or without WP:BITE, I do not gladly suffer presumptuousness from new users, nor should Scope creep or any other editor need to. I have every authority to block users who abuse their editing privileges, but it is something I extremely rarely do - I leave it for other admins. Instead, I generally expect that users who are contributing good content in accordance with Wikipedia principles are open to learning how to edit and how to conduct their communications with other users without breaking our civility rules by accusing them of vandalism and trolling. Blanking a talk page does not remove the discussion(s) or their histories from view. The usual practice however, is to correctly archive the contents. Your best action is to let your report play out and hope that it does not end in a petard for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it's possibly what I might end up having to do when they start throwing their weight about was obviously a threat - and hope that it does not end in a petard for you is another one. This was your second ever direct interaction with me, and it once again conveys great hostility for no reason. Is unpleasant aggression your default, or are you just doing it for me? Lqqhh (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly not a threat, neither was it a direct interaction with you. I have seen enough now of your impoliteness around the site. This is a large community with a lot of highly experienced and mature users, we have to get along with each other. You appear to have started your Wikipedia experience on the wrong foot. I respectfully suggest you calm down, otherwise you might not enjoy working on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Templates

[edit]

I saw your withdrawn IA request. Not sure what you're exactly looking for but I did create this which were all the templates generated by the curation tool bar that I could find. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list. I was mainly concerned with checking the dialogues produced by the Curation tool itself, but I haven't had time to look into it closer yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please...

[edit]

You recently deleted Arthur Schwartz (disambiguation), as unnecessary. Did it name Arthur Schwartz the NYC lawyer who is leading the opposition to restricting vehicular traffic from 14th Street (Manhattan)'s central section? He is an important figure, worth an entry in this list.

I am working on preparing an article on the 14th Street busway.

Once I moved the draft to article space I would have added an entry to the disambiguation page saying something like

Was that Arthur Schwartz already an entry in Arthur Schwartz (disambiguation), when you deleted it? Geo Swan (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, The DAB page had a blue linked page and a redlinked page. The red link did not conform to guidelines so the page was deleted. The blue link was to Arthur Schwartz (1900 – 1984), an American composer and film producer. The redlink was ostensibly a spam link for a non notable minor politician. A DAB page was therefore not necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick reply.
So it didn't already mention Arthur Schwartz (NYC lawyer), who opposed the 14th Street busway?
Should I assume you would not object to a new DAB with the entry I suggested above? Geo Swan (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan as long as it doesn't contain a redlink to a non existent page, no. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be hard to keep up with our policies and procedures, because they are in a constant state of flux. When I first tackled working on DAB pages our conventions included:
  1. absolutely no redlinks;
  2. only one wikilink per entry;
  3. absolutely no piped wikilinks;
  4. that wikilink was not in italics, even if it would be in a regular article
  • I was surprised the first time I saw a DAB entry with a redlink and a bluelink. I consulted Boleyn, our top expert on disambiguation, who set me right. Policy had evolved, and the new standard was that a redlink could be included on a DAB page, so long as its entry included a bluelink to an article where that redlink was used.
  • More recently I've seen many DAB pages where piping within the wikilink was used to render part or all of the wikilink in italics.
  • I think either I am mistaken, and redlinks remain disallowed, or our convention barring redlinks got amended and you didn't notice. Would you accept an assurance from Boleyn, our top expert on disambiguation, as sufficient authority to resolve this? Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies and guidelines are being so constantly eroded over the years that I am disinterested in getting involved in an argument about it. Perhaps Boleyn should run for adminship, I might even support, or even nominate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung and GeoSwan, thanks for your kind words. It sounds like a borderline case where the second redlinked entry would just push it over to meeting the guidelines - there used to be a tool for checking for any redlinks with the name, but no longer. I'm not sure what I would use admin tools for and the application process is so cut-throat I don't think I could do it, but I really appreciate two such experienced editors suggesting it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Wehrmacht @ DYK

[edit]

Hi Kudpung,

Since you were instrumental in getting the article into en.wp, Jack90s15 and I took the liberty by adding you to the DYK nomination which you can find here:

Hope this works! --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same Jack90s15 (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick cleanup of typos and image issues. Surprised so much made it through the GA review. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung

[edit]

Thanks for wishing me luck for PSLE. Kudpung, if you don’t know what it means and stands for, first, it stands for Primary School Leaving Examinations, second, it is an exam by SEAB at the end of Primary education. This is the Singapore format of education. Maybe, if you reply, I want to know what’s your format of education? And apologies for the late reply because I’m busy doing my work. Thanks. BamZ412(Talk) 16:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about RfA research projects

[edit]

Greetings,

seeing as you are one of the institutional memories of RfA, I wanted to ask a question: Has someone ever tried to compile a big list of all RfX !votes? In the sense of a table with the !vote, rationale given, name of the user, name of the RfX etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, No, but we did do a survey of voters in 2011 at Wikipedia:RfA_reform_(continued)/Voter_profiles#How_they_voted which came pretty close to the criteria you mention. Our aim was to get an overview of the profile of the average RfA voter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was thinking that for some of the perennial "is RfA broken?" discussions having information on the rationales might be useful, but I figure it'd be a very time consuming task to assemble such information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of such an effort. But if anyone did then dates would be important, both because there are longterm trends in votes, such as "good vandalfighter" ceasing to be sufficient on its own to get someone through RFA from around the time that Rollback was unbundled in early 2008. Short term trends in votes, or at least questions, such as increased emphasis on tenure after incidents such as pastor Theo, or the bizarre fad for "excessive proportion automated" opposes and many individual voters who have normalised their position in voting after a few votes where they stuck outside consensus. ϢereSpielChequers 08:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::::Jo-Jo Eumerus,I think it would be very complex to parse the actual rationales used. More important was to establish what kind of experience the voters had, whether they were regulars at RfA, or just drive-by voters. Due to the reforms of Dec 2015, since Jan 2016 the number of editors participating in each RfA has more than doubled - and with it the drama and trolling, so no net benefit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • WereSpielChequers is right in that over time clear trends come and go. Sometimes it's very difficult to get rid of regular disruptive voters, for example, who only turn up to deliberately make a nuisance of themselves. Usually after a few years they get tired of it. Some don't, and game the system by knowing that a partial T-ban prevents them from making further comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Way to dig out @Eric Corbett there 😂 ——SerialNumber54129 08:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)–[reply]
A good example of someone whose behaviour at RFA improved over time. I can remember when they were notorious for scathing but unevidenced opposes. I won't say we got them all the way to polite but evidenced opposes, but things were much less toxic. ϢereSpielChequers 09:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Xaosflux, I wasn't aware of that one. I've bookmarked it. What I'd really like to find however is one that will provide a summary of a users vote pattern like the one at the "how they voted" section of the 2011 page. Example: I can see that Kudpung voted a total of 91 times with 46 supports 29 opposes, and 16 Neutral. (I'm not sure if that's his entire history in 2011, or a specific period of time - but 19 RfA votes is a rather large sample). — Ched (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that tool may be of some use for analysing an individual RfA, though I can't immediately think what - perhaps for the 'crats at a 'crat chat maybe? The tool I always found most useful was this one [1] which Scottywong built on the same lines as his AfD analysis tool. It really should be rewritten and brought back into use, it's been extremely helpful. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See, when I asked my question I was envisaging a way to analyze voting patterns more broadly, e.g how frequently edit counts or FA writing are cited as oppose (or support rationales) and what kind of rationales most likely appear in failed RfAs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that, but as I said, it would be very complex to parse. It would need a semantic search algo and I'm not sure the effort would be worth it. Perhaps empirical study would be the easiest way. Means plodding through over 400 RfAs now though, because that's about how many I've voted on altogether since then. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, that report is good for checking/resolving duplicate votes during an RfA. — xaosflux Talk 15:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, xaosflux, I didn't think of that, but does anyone ever think to use it during an RfA? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Even when I don't participate in RfA I normally look them over and clerk them for technical issues. — xaosflux Talk 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It could be done manually, if you had a few years and enough motivation. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 16:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's what grad students and high school interns are for... We need some grad students to write a thesis on "Psychodynamics of consensus decision-making in self-organized collaborative groups" or some such. isaacl (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could always make a WikiProject. Assign one person to work on one month's worth of RfAs or something. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 18:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, do it! As WereSpielChequers mentions, deciding how to categorize (code) the comments is crucial, and where the experience of those who've done it before would be helpful. isaacl (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the difficulties about analysing RFA !votes is that it isn't just that individual !voters change their criteria over time, there are also overlapping coteries of editors who have particular concerns, not all of which are immediately obvious to the casual observer, and their benchmarks also vary. It is a bit like taking a driving test with a full bus of inspectors, some of whom are sitting comfortably and keen that you stick to the schedule, whilst others are standing in a crush and very aware of how smoothly you drive and how abruptly you brake. Tenure, edit count and content contributions are three where significant numbers of editors care, standards differ, but at least it is obvious why people are opposing, and most, though not all do so civilly "come back in 6 months" rather than "you are not yet part of the community". I suspect that a candidate with twelve months tenure, a DYK and three and a half thousand edits would likely fail, though otherwise well qualified candidates who were at or below that minima on one of those three have passed in the modern era. What gets more confusing to watch is when a candidate is suspected of being under 18, and a cluster of editors join the Opposse with veiled comments about maturity. Where RFA starts to get incivil is when the Opposse moves from "not yet" arguments to "not if you behave like this" arguments; here again the "third rail"s differ, some are concerned about over heavy hands on the deletion button, some are concerned about blockhappy admins, and others are suspicious of the return of long departed foes. Analysing all of those factors would be very complex, producing an analysis that missed some of these would likely give some anomalous results. ϢereSpielChequers 10:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wise words! Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung/Archive_Aug_2019&oldid=1079757612"