User talk:Kudpung/Archive Sep 2010

Brontë

Hello, I was pleased to see you'd translated the French article Les Brontë, written in the spring 2009. The main idea was that each section ought to be autonomous, hence the unavoidable reiteration of the same facts. This was recently thought to be a major defect (also mentioned by an English reader: see English talk page) and, reading the article again, I found it much too complicated and written in a convoluted style. Consequently, I decided to modify it in depth and to delete all the flowery bits. This gave me the opportunity to wikify the text, particularly the notes and references (more references were added). In my opinion, the result is far more satisfying, although the article is still too long by wikipedia standards. This being said, I have no intention of getting rid of whole passages, since I want it to be a summa, presenting all the major aspects of the question, i.e. people, events, local conditions, works (including a sample of poetry for each of them), etc. If you would kindly have a look at it, I'd be most grateful. Any comments you wish to make will be much appreciated (please use my French 'page de discussion'). Best wishes, Robert Ferrieux (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Salut Robert! I suppose doing a translation of the envergure of Brontë gives one a very close and forced examination of the text. As you can see, apart from correcting a few typos, I didn't interfere with the fr.Wiki article. However, I have seriously edited the En. version - already with a view to splitting off stuff into main articles from much of the heavy detail. It looks as if I have preempted what you guys are thinking of doing now. The other issue is that the en.Wiki and the fr;Wki have very different policies of content, layout, scope, etc. Nevertheless, congratulations to all concerned at fr.Wiki in getting the monumental Brontë article off the ground. I knew nothing about the Brontës before I started the traduc. Now I feel as if I know everything about them! --Kudpung (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, French articles do tend to be longer than the corresponding English ones (French people being so much more talkative, as everyone knows). However, the key reason behind the length of Les Brontë is that it is the only way to explain and account for the synergy between the four children (their Juvenilia being only a part of the global picture).

The French article has been (also) heavily criticized for its sheer length. Ideally, it would probably be better — or at least more in keeping with WP requirements — to split it up and tranfer information to the individual articles. Problem is, we believe that a lot of understanding of how these children came to be what they were would probably be lost in the process. So I expect we will more or less stick to the present format, even though we admit it is a bit "unwieldy". --Azurfrog (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The French article certainly told me more than I needed to know about the Brontës and I did find it very interesting to do the traduc. However, our guidelines at en.Wiki tend more towards brevity and fact reporting than trying to explain things. There is no doubt that there existed an extraordinary symbiosis among the children, but I have interpreted that it is more our task at en.Wiki to provide referenced sources which the reader can turn to if he/she needs a more in depth treatment or professional opinions. I felt that the French article went into more detail than necessary for an English encyclopedia and I once mentioned somewhere that it looked more worthy as a master degree thesis! --Kudpung (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Your are absolutely right: an article of this length and built in this way needs a lot of paring and reshuffling for an English encyclopaedia. Here in France, we must assume that most people have never heard of the Brontës and if they have, they knwow pretty much next to nothing about them. Hence the idea that a main article on the subject must cover it in its globality, since readers will never bother to open subsidiary articles and then go back to the central source.
After the serious trimming I have subjected the article to, we'll let it compete for a gold star, probably as from the beginning of October when my comrade Azurfrog is back from his holidays, with the advantage of being already aware of the objections which are bound to be raised, mainly about its length and the presence in the course of the development of various poems or lengthy quotations.
Have you had a look at our Robert/Elizabeth Browning (and co.). Let's keep in touch. All the best, Robert Ferrieux (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

{{REVISIONUSER}} in talk page header

Hi.

I hope you don't find my pointing this out presumptious, and apologies if you already know, but the header on this talkpage uses the Magic Word {{REVISIONUSER}}. This displays the name of the last user to edit the page. Whilst this works fine in an editnotice (such as yours, which I'm reading while typing this message) - when used on the talk page itself it doesn't really have the presumably desired effect - for instance, before I began composing this message, your page said to me: Hi, Robert Ferrieux., since that was the last person to revise it before I wandered past. There's a short discussion about this at: User_talk:ChaosMaster16/Archive102#Talk_Page_Heading where we encountered the situation with another user. Again, sorry if you already knew this.  Begoon•talk 07:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you also checked my user page for any errors too ;) --Kudpung (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

lol - no, I wasn't checking for anything, I came here to read a message that was referenced from one of the pages on my watchlist, and just happened to notice it. I thought I'd mention it in passing because it's not the kind of thing you're likely to notice yourself.  Begoon•talk 07:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No problems! I've known about it almost since I did it over a year ago. Been too busy providing content and other productive stuff to worry too much about it. Thanks for reminding me though ;) --Kudpung (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Obviously it's utterly unimportant in the great scheme of things, but as a designer/coder in RL I find it quite difficult not to comment on little niggly things like that, once noticed. Habit, certainly, and character flaw, quite possibly.  Begoon•talk 08:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Four glasses puzzle

Sarek of Vulcan fixed the Afd for me, so you should now be able to add your comments. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School

Hi. I hope you don't mind but I reverted a few of your changes.

Firstly, regards the logo/crest; it was decided in a previous discussion (which I'll try and find) that it did not meet the fair use criteria, plus it looks bad, don't you think?

Secondly, regards the infobox, I just thought it looked worse. Also, the chair of the governors was unreferenced. Is there any policy that states we should use the UK schools box over just the general schools one?

Thanks for helping out, and for the suggestion regards the alumni list. I'll have a dig but I doubt there are enough to create such an impressive list. Tom (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The logo does meet the fair use criteria. I was collating the relevant material as you posted. The same FUR and 'logo' © is in use on hundreds of UK school articles. You are of course free to use any infobox you like, but as there was one made specifically for UK schools, it's usual to use it. Generally if we find the wrong box being used we replace it with the correct one and populate any missing slots. BTW, someone has been adding unreferenced alumni - I didn't delete it although perhaps I should, but I did leave a warning on the IP's tp. Please be assured that I am not looking to interfere with your school's FA, but for obbvious reasons I do have all UK school articles on my watchlist. The last thing we want is for a non school article expert to drive by and demote the FA. You can be fairly sure that nobody from the WP:SCHOOLS is going to vandalise it ;) Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh right ok, in that case apologies. Even so, though, don't you think the logo looks terrible? I mean, does it actually add anything to the article? If it has to go in, could it go elsewhere rather than in the infobox?

I did notice the added alumni, and I've now removed it, thanks. I didn't for a moment think you were interfering, and of course it is no more my article than it is anyone else's. On a completely unrelated note, I'm planning on holidaying in Thailand this Christmas, any recommendations? Tom (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the logo looks terrible, but it was the best I could find - it really needs one with a slightly higher res and at about 150 x 150 px. If you think the infobox looks better without it, leave it off , it's not mandatory - as I said before, you've already got your FA and I've updated the WP:SCHOOLS FA list. However, if you or someone connected with the school can get a clean scan of it from some genuine school stationery or a brochure or prospectus, it would be great. It's the first UK school FA. On Thailand, don't hesitate to email me, Depending on what kind of holiday you want, I can certainly come up with some suggestions. BTW, now that you've been through the mill of getting a school article up to FA, would you or anyone on your team like to do a UK school GA review? GA is nowhere near as demanding as an FA.--Kudpung (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This: File:J-Sch-crest.svg might be better. Traced from a higher res jpg on the website and recoloured according to the low res version.  Begoon•talk 04:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That is excellent. Did you do it yourself? Congrats if you did. I have requested deletion of my original .jpg file. Would you have time to do a GA review of Malvern College for us? I can't do it myself because I have contributed too much to it already. It's already listed on the GAC proposal page. If you are too busy right now in RL, never mind..Kudpung (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes - graphics is what I do. I've converted hundreds of poor bitmaps like that here and at Commons - that's my main content contribution, although I do monitor a pretty big watchlist, and there are a few articles I edit. Doing a GA review is not something I've ever done - but I'm very strong on spelling, grammar, style and readability, so I might have a go. I've looked at the guidelines before, so it wouldn't be completely alien to me.  Begoon•talk 05:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok - had a go at the GA review - hope I did it right, since it's my first.  Begoon•talk 06:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be telling me about your expertise in graphics, I could come up with a 1,000 things for you to do for us! Are you going to place your crest on the Judd page, or do you want me to do it for you? Thanks for taking n the GA review. It should be pretty clean already because I set high standards for myself and others, but I'm not looking for any favours, so be critical - you are sure to find things that we have missed; there always are.--Kudpung (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll add the image to Judd. There wasn't much at all in the review, it's very well written; most of what I did comment on were suggestions only.  Begoon•talk 07:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The logo is fantastic, good job. Well done on getting Malvern to GA status, sorry I couldn't review myself. Tom (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Keith D's talk page.
Message added 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See also following section on Talkback. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC) .

Liturgy (ancient Greece)

Hi, would you be good enough to check the translation of Liturgy (ancient Greece) against fr:Liturgie (Grèce antique). My French is fairly basic, and I'm sure I've mangled it horribly. TIA. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 10:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had a brief first look at it; it's very long, but most French articles are. I'll check it out against the French when I have time, but I do recommend heavily editing the article and/or splitting some sections off into 'main articles'. If you did the trnslation, don't worry about having to cut stuff out again - the mammoth Brontë article, for example, which I translated this year, is now only about 75% of what I originally translated after we had all had a go at whittling it down. One of the problems (for us) of French article style, is the wide use of <ref></ref> tags for putting additional details in the Notes section.--Kudpung (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you taking the time when you can. You may be right about having to trim it down, but it's clearly well researched and it would be a shame to lose that information. By the way, is there a policy on translating direct quotes from the French secondary sources? Doesn't seem right to do so, somehow. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 11:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On translating policy, it's porbably best if you read all about it first hand at Wikipedia:translation. --Kudpung (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Schroeder Romero & Shredder

Hello, you placed a notability tag on Shroeder Romero & Shredder. If we are to be strict about the notability guidelines in terms of requiring significant coverage then few manhattan galleries would pass. Just look at the wiki . most of these pages are very bad. This may have to do with the nature of a gallery. Galleries hold exhibitions and it is the exhibitions that are talked about, not the galleries. Nonetheless, galleries are large part of manhattan culture and it should be addressed. I realize I'm digressing a bit but I'd like to hear your thoughts.Warrenking (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems much of what I'm pointing out about the other galleries is covered in Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Warrenking (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you've really answered your own questions. But let's not put the cart before the horse. We have a lot more hoops to jump through before an article gets accepted. Notability is a criterion of inclusion. Unless they are of the fame and envergure of the Tate in London, there is hardly a gallery in Manhatten or anywhere else in the world that will meet our criteria for inclusion. If they've slipped through the net it's due to the inexperienced and possibly less mature WP:New page patrolers letting them through. It's not an argument to say: "Well look at all the others that have been allowed." And by the way, it appears that I am not the only editor to have immediately raised a doubt as the the notability of your gallery. I don't want to bore you with a string of links to all our policy pages, as I'm sure you are familiar with them already. They are however sometimes confusing, so please do not hesitate to ask me to explain any of them that might seem ambiguous or unclear. You could then even help us to reduce the huge backlog of all those articles that need improving or deleting. Do note that I haven't proposed your article for immediate deletion, I've only tagged it as requiring attention, as I wanted to give you the opportunity to follow this rule: WP:BURDEN first.--Kudpung (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC) BTW, WP:ININ is an essay, it's not policy.

Speedy deletion declined: Roger Ferriter

Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Roger Ferriter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 07:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

2009 Trophée des Alpilles – Singles

Holy God... This is the singles draw with results only. See main article: 2009 Trophée des Alpilles. PL Alvarez (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong talk page, God is at Talk:God, talk to him there ;) So I can categorise your article as golf, yes? or was it badminton? Doubly funny because I have a home just a few kilometres from Les Alpilles and I've never heard of it.--Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Malven College GA & userpage

Hi Kudpung. Thanks for the GA badge on my user pagical as a rulee. I'm glad it came together so readily. I had rather hoped so, as I got to a point in my time management where I simply couldn't justify too much time in Wikipedia (I lose time in other areas, but I'm taming those too), hence my burst at citation formatting, then absence. I felt a bit guilty that I wouldn't be able to do much more, but I figured the article wouldn't need much more work, and I'm glad to see it came together. Regards Wotnow (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

After our combined efforts on other GAs, I think anything we propose in future will leave little for the reviewers to point out - although they will always find something. The next one on the list will be Hanley Castle High School, perhaps you'd like to check it over. Malleus has already had one look at it a while ago for me and he's extremely critical as a rule. Once again, thanks for all your help. --Kudpung (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:List of libraries in Thailand

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Justus Scheibert

Sorry on that part...At first look the article had a scent of vandalism, but when I searched google on the same subject, I found the article to be fair. I also welcomed the user on behalf of Wikipedia. The over tagging was an act of defence from my side...excuse me for that... :)  arun  talk  15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Death anomalies

Hi Kudpung, I've submitted a signpost article at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-13/Sister projects about the death anomalies project. As you've done a lot of the work there I wonder if you'd be willing to run an eye over it, and maybe add a quote from your good self? ϢereSpielChequers 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a peek :) --Kudpung (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you've covered it adequately and eloquently. There's not much I could add really. If you like, you could mention that it might be an interesting challenge for the language experts from the translation project, in a similar way to how you solicited my help. I've corrected just one tiny typo. --Kudpung (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung, much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

78.146.165.175 (talk)

moved from top

Hello Kudpung, Could you please let us know how we can talk to you privately about a comment you have just recently made about an article which we uploaded. Just because you are a volunteer, does not give you the right to speak to people with contempt. We would love to have a discussion with you regarding your comments. Look forward to hearing from you. If you leave information for us on your page we would be most grateful. thegreenthing78.146.165.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

Hi, I have replied on your talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have replied on your talk page. Thanks81.159.130.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

A further and final comment has been posted on your talk page at talk page. if you can, please avoid posting from a different IP address each time - it's something else that is also against Wikipedia policy, unfortunately. --Kudpung (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré

Rather a long way from Malvern, and not, I know, your speciality, but if, perchance you were minded to say anything at the current peer review it would be esteemed a favour. (I should, by the way, have said before that I am at your service to reciprocate at any time on any article you have an interest in.) – Tim riley (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Ah, Fauré! A much ignored composer - excellent piano stuff. Yes, a long way from Malvern, but oddly enough, not far at all from my home in France! As with Elgar, I'm not really a sufficiently competent authority on classical composers to know what to look out for on the content level. I will look the article over for possible formatting errors, structure, and reliability of sources though. --Kudpung (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That will do nicely: thank you very much! – Tim riley (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tim. The lead and the first para of section music contains the same statement: The composer Aaron Copland wrote of them, "The themes, harmonies, form, have remained essentially the same, but with each new work they have all become more fresh, more personal, more profound. I would suggest that you could remove the one from the lead without having a negative effect on the article as a whole. I have made a couple of very minor tweaks. The article is quite long, and broad in its scope, is well well sourced, especially from paid-for sources to which I assume you or the co-editors have subsrcibed.

I would also suggest slightly rearraging the Biography section. I would rename the section Personal life, and split sub-sections such as First musical appointments and any others to do wit his professional musical development into a main section Career. Otherwise, stuff such as Marriage looks a bit odd in amongst everything else. Unless I have missed anything very important, IMO the article is certainly a GAC, and once promoted, could rapidly become a FA.

I hope this helps. --Kudpung (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Thank you so much! - Tim riley (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwix

Hello, we're still needing your help over here. JackPotte (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. OK, I've offered a couple of tips there about what you can do to take it further, and how I might be able to help you gain impetus for your proposal. Do keep me updated becausd I'm very interested in you basic suggestion.--Kudpung (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the paragraph, if accepted we would just need for a sysop to add the archive hyperlinks automatic generations in Mediawiki:Common.js. JackPotte (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I really do not understand what you mean here. Please explain fully what you have done because your suggestion was a very good one and I am interested in seeing it get adopted.--Kudpung (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Kudpung, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"OZ" and "Ongameport"

Hi Kudpung,
"I called it as I saw it", and the rest of the usual stuff people say when they don't want to admit they are wrong. The short answer to your question is: what's a game port?
The long answer: the editor that added the info had just added a page Ongameport, and it's only content was this oz.ongameport.com. Either I A3'd and it was deleted by NawlinWiki, or NW deleted A3'd it even before my CSD tag was applied; whatever actually happened isn't important.
What happened next was that I undid the editor's next addition, reasoning that if the article was speedy-able, then it quacked like advertising, and most probably it had no place in an embedded list. Actually it was in a table. And WP:SALAT doesn't apply to tables. Or, it might apply. And what exactly is a game port? Now I'm completely confused. Why can't you just ask me nice, simple questions about Constitutional Law, or Japanese botanists, or pretty ladybugs... ?
Thanks for this message instead of simply just undoing the edit. Please get back to me once it's sorted out - looks like I have an apology to make to a new editor.
--Shirt58 (talk) 9:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shirt, thanks for you rapid reply. Actually, I don't think this WP:EAR request came from the author of th deleted page. User:Crass33 only made 2 edits, one to the table and one to EAR. FWIW, the edit to the table seemed pretty innocuous and the game does exist. I'll admit though that on first sight, the game port website front page is so badly designed it looks like an online store for something. I too would probably have "called it as I saw it". Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Werner Freiherr von Beschwitz

Hi Kudpung,

All of the articles that I found on living Knight's Cross recipients use the past tense of "was" when describing the rank and the the decoration. DocYako (talk) 4:09 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doc, you may well be right. However, as the Wkipedia is an encyclopedia, we are 'under orders' to be extremely factual about whether people are alive or not, and to avoid any misunderstanding. See Wikipedia:Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis. Your contribs, especially about notable Germans are very valuable to the encyclopedia, so I've done a couple of minor clean ups. You might like to check out these pages:WP:CITE and WP:MOS for more information on formatting references and notes. If you are working on, or preparing articles on German related subjects, please do not hesitate to ask me for help. regards, --Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tb

TB. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Alright! All ship-shape with the stub icons! I hope this will impress wikipedians now. If there is anything else you can advise me to do, leave a comment on my talk.

User:Bakeysaur99

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Inka 888's talk page.
Message added 02:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lycee

Hi, Kudpung!

I am aware that the lycee is the equivalent of a U.S. high school, a Canadian "secondary school," or a British "sixth form college". A secondary school (the general word "secondary school") would be a high school, a lycee, etc. A tertiary educational institution would be a college/university.

The reason why I had the naked text "Situé en plein coeur de Metz, capitale de la Lorraine, le lycée Fabert fut le premier lycée de la ville" in there was so the original French text that was used to support the citation would be visible so readers know what text supports the content.

The naked link was a mistake, so thank you for fixing it! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I taught for 12 years in the French school system in mainland France. (BTW: Engl. 6th form college is 6th form only - 12th grade, or 13th grade in some countries), Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I see! The City of Paris translates "Lycee" as "6th form college" on its English pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're wrong (Webmasters are notorious for getting content things wrong!). Lower secondary is college, roughly grades 7,8, 9 and Lycée is 10, 11, 12. The French school class notqtion goes backwards, so they say Premier for Grade 12, seconde for Grade 11, etc. College and Lycée are generally separate schools on separate campusses. Only private schools might go through all years, and they might even include primary and pre-school. BTW, I'm also a published French-English lexicographer amongst other things!--Kudpung (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright... I'll search the Paris website and see if there are any other documents that translate what a "lycee" is. The City of Paris posts content in primarily English, Spanish, and French.

The City of Paris translates "Collège" as "high school"

If these translations are a mistake, I would imagine the city would fix them if I sent an e-mail to them. I sent an e-mail to the webmaster, asking if the "sixth form college" translation was intentional. I'll see what happens.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt whether you'll have much success. I tried the same thing for years, and it fell on deaf ears! In the UK (if there is to be any distinction, and in modern-day state comprehensive schools there generally isn't), college woud translate directly as Junior High School. I'm not sure what it is in the USA or Canada, I never worked there. What is confusing is that in Englqnd, some LEA's still prqctice a three tier school system, so you get a Middle School as well, from which kids start secondary, or High School at age 13 instead of 11. Kudpung (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In the USA a "college" is a tertiary institution like a university. Often colleges offer less subjects than universities do. A community college in the USA is a two year program that offers classes to a certain district or municipality. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And in the UK, with the exception of the great unis of Oxbridge, the word college usualy referes to college of further education - kinda where you can learn to be a plumber, a motor mechanic, or a hairdresser, although some do offer tertialy degrees on behalf of nearby unis.Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2010 (UT

Apologies, I should have added that in a French lycée there is the class Terminale (final) which of course is the class where they do their Baccalauréat - it's vague, could equate to an English 6th form, or what is still sometimes referred to as the Upper 6th, aclass where UK kids do their A and S level GCEs. In any ase, it's the final graduation class that reults in entry level for university.--Kudpung (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem!

Cheers --Tommy! 16:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Stewart MacFarlane

Hi, this is Giotette. Thanks for your help with the Stewart MacFarlane (artist) article. I don't know how to make the footnotes more authoritative. I don't know how to make the whole article Wiki-approved. I hate all those warnings at the top. Please advise! Giotette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giotette (talk • contribs) 05:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC) :

Hi Giotette! It all quite easy really, but you will need to follow the links and read up on the well documented instructions that we have here. I suggest you start here (click this link): Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia, and take your time. Follow links to the other pages for more detailed instructions, and pay particular attention to the pages that describe what kind of references are needed, how to present them on a page; how to use talk pages and format and sign your messages, and how to make correct edit summaries. If you get lost, no worries, come back here and I'll give you direct links to the pages you need to read, and I'll try to explain anything you still don't fully understand. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Cohen and Jamie Mitchell (aka Jamie Mitchell Bertman)

Hi Kudpung_ I thank you for your patience with me as I am obviously not doing this very well. My question is simply, what am I not corroborating with my links about bands that I have performed in? I assume the imdb links are sufficient for my film career. I am about to get into my work as a human trafficking filmaker with Aaron Cohen, whose wiki page I just started, so I want to get things right and accommodate your guidelines. There will not be a lot of info on these shoots because they are undercover etc. In good faith I can provide links to CNN, Larry King video footage. Will that suffice? Thank you for reading. Jamie Mitchell (aka Jamie Mitchell Bertman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transultra (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jamie, The threshold for inclusion in an encyclopedia is the concept of notability. New articles arrive here at the rate of up to 500 per hour and we naturally have to draw the line somewhere. Your first question will be 'What about so-and-so? They've got an article!' Very possible, but there is only a handful of people who are checking all the new arrivals, and some do of course slip trough the net - until a more experienced Wikipedian picks up on it later, or is doing a stint on what we call New Page Patrol. I think one way to explain this is to understand that even the best referenced sources don't make notability - all they do is confirm it if the subject is already notable. So what makes something notable enough? Well, we do have a very strict policy on this with regard to living people (our strictest policy), they must have done something exceptional for the media to have picked up on it and written a book about them, or several editorial pieces in important quality national or international newspapers or magazines, or made a TV documentary about them, such as having won gold discs for their music or been inducted into an official Hall of Fame, etc., or won a Nobel Prize for something, or having developed a piece of software or a website that has truly revolutionised the way we live or work, or top members of a very royal family, so we have no problems for example, with Steve Wozniak, Henry Windsor, Precilla White, Harry Webb, or Joseph Alois Ratzinger - those are the qualities that make encyclopedic material. And when we've got that, then we need to prove those features with what we call reliable, verifiable sources. So what - is your next question - are acceptable reliable sources? Well, they are not websites or newspaper stories that only briefly mention the subject's name in an article about something else. They must be specifically about the subject, and have been written because an uninvolved, respected author thinks the subject is important enough, or has done something extraordinary enough to write about him or her. All websites, except those of governments and really important news and TV sources are suspect. Nowadays anyone can make a website for himself and get it hosted for a couple of pounds a month, and there are no controls over what they want to say about themselves. This also immediately disallows the use of all social networking sites Twitteries, Yourfaces, MyTube, etc, that anyone can contribute to, and surprisingly, even the International Movie Data Base (IMDB), which is not, on its own, sufficient proof of anything.

Finally, one very strict rule here is that you cannot write an article about yourself, or even about someone you know well or whom you work with. Articles like that are Conflict of Interest, and are usually mercilessly deleted on sight. The bottom line is, that if you would like to be part of this encyclopedia building community, there are a lot (possibly even too many) of rules that have to be learned, and some quick, clickable links to some of the most important of these are: WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:BAND, WP:ARTIST, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE. Wiki is also not a list of everything or all bands, or all journalists, that exist (WP:WWIN). If the subjects you want to write about can jump through all these hoops, the next thing you need to know is how to present the article, what must go into it, and what must be left out. One of the best ways to do that is to take a look at the good articles about people, use a similar format, use an infobox, include the categories to make it searchable, and prepare the article offline on your computer or online in your Wikipedia private space that you have here just for that purpose, and then submit it to the publicly viewable page if and when it is ready. You can always ask me or another an editor here to check it out for you before you do that. Best regards, Kudpung (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tasha Ekard

I would like your advice on whether to nominate the above page under CSD A7 or BLP prod. --ZhongHan (Email) 06:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Do a WP:BEFORE and if all you get is blogs, Twitter and such stuff slap a A7 on it. It's actaully quite rare to find a clear cut case for BLPPROD because all they have to do is stick a crap ref such as YouTube or Face book or just any external link anywhere on the page and then you can't use the BLPPROD - we're probably going to rethink the BLPPROD again soon now that it's been up and running for 6 months, Good luck. --Kudpung (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --ZhongHan (Email) 09:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Worcester

Thanks for the note, I have rushed off and copy-edited a little. However I am more concerned with the 2001 census, we should be addressing this site-wide. Can you advise the nature of the move? Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 04:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Hi Rich. Yes, I've just left a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire. If you run the checklinks tool you should get a list of all that link to it. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks it was your note there that alerted me. Rich Farmbrough, 05:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Hi. I'm not sure exactly what happened. I had run the checklink tool on Evesham because I'm thinking of putting it up for GA. The result I got was that the page on the Worcs County Council site we use for the demographics had moved., and it provided a list of WP:WORCS pages using the link. Howeveer, manually checking the link goes to the ONS page for Evesham here, so it's maybe a tool error. I don't mow how these tools work - it's not my area of specialization. --Kudpung (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Worcester article uses both: whub and ONS. Only whub seems to have moved. I would always prefer ONS because if they move they are going to be systematic, and we have a site wide template for them, which means one edit fixes everything. I'll leave a note on the project page to that effect. Rich Farmbrough, 06:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks Rich. I didn't know about thst tpl. --Kudpung (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now fixed all the other deadlinks on the Worcester page.--Kudpung (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Brianga's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Owain Owain

Thank you for putting a conflict of interest warning on that article about Owain Owain. I had an exchange with Llywelyn2000 on the Welsh Wikipedia last night, in which he said that he bought the copyright in Owain's book not to make money, but with the intention of releasing it for free on the web, though it seems that he has not yet done so. I think this still confirms a close connection with the subject, even though probably not a financial one. Just to also let you know, he has a section of his personal discussion page on the Welsh Wikipedia called "Robin Llwyd ab Owain", mostly in English, where he also admits to having known Owain Owain's son for many years, on whom he has also written an article here. Do you want to check it out and decide whether a conflict of interest warning would be appropriate on that article too? Thanks. Llais Sais (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Llais for the heads up. As long as Llewelyn fully understands our policy on WP:COI, which he probably does now that you have spoken to him, and keeps his editing perfectly neutral that in no way could be construed as a plug for his book and web site or for Llewellyn's son, I don't think there would really be much to be gained by tagging all his articles. let's keep the articles on our watchlists and check in from time to time that everything is neutral, notable, and correctly sourced. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, as I wasn't sure. By the way, I didn't say this Robin Llwyd ab Owain was his own son, but the son of Owain Owain - i.e. he claims to have known both father and son. Also please be careful about spelling, as forms starting "Llew-" are considered to be anglicisms, that might annoy him. Llais Sais (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't guarantee that last bit - I speak 12 languages but I'm afraid Welsh isn't one of them ;) --Kudpung (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Alphonse Giroux

I removed the BLPPROD you placed on Alphonse Giroux as an article on someone who died in 1848 clearly does qualify as a BLP. Click23 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A rare slip of a mouse, thanks for catching it. I am aware of the policy - I helped make it :) --Kudpung (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion declined: Gürsel

Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gürsel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not redirect to a different or incorrect namespace. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to be a dab page. The creator made two of them - this was the other one. There was no nerer CSD criteria - or do duplicate dab pages have to go through AfD? Thanks for any advice.--Kudpung (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is the other one? It can be made to redirect to Gürsel. Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if it's gone already - someone probably deleted the other one, and this one now needs to be turned into a proper dab page. No big issue, I've been cleqring the huge NPP backlog from 31 August for several hours.--Kudpung (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Article: Davis & Shirtliff Group

I understand that you highlighted an article about the Davis & Shirtliff Group for speedy deletion for infringement of A7 "No Indication of Importance" and for "unambiguous advertising". Having re-read my article I can see how some of the content which is aimed at highlighting Davis & Shirtliff's activities may appear to suggest that I am advertising the services of Davis & Shirtliff. In light of this I have re-drafted the article and hope to have achieved objectivity. However, I do refute your suggestion that the Davis & Shirtliff Group are not important or notable as they are the largest, oldest and most well established provider of water and solar equipment in in Kenya and, as a result, are a household name. Furthermore, Davis & Shirtliff provide a high level of expertise in the water sector within East Africa. Something which is recognised and made use of by a number of non-governmental organisations working to provide potable water to underprivileged members of society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeVaulkhard (talk • contribs) 16:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have replied in depth on your talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Afd

I watch all AfDs I'm involved in. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)