User talk:Kudpung/Archive Sep 2014

Your note

Hi,

I just found your note on my talk page. Thank you for the invitation to meet. Unfortunately I'll be out of the country (i.e., Thailand) in a few weeks and staying in the States for half a year or more. Perhaps when we return . . . Beebuk 00:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Mann School entry

Hi: Agree w u on Horace Mann School notable section. Would enjoy a rewrite along line you suggested.SLY111 (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)SLY111[reply]

I'm pretty capable of handling my own talk page.

Hi Kudpong, Thanks for responding to a question posed to me on my talk page, but in the future, I'd really appreciate if you'd let answer my own mail. My talk page neither needs nor desires your supervision. Thanks! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vertium, anything that concerns the CVUA is the concern of anyone who is concerned with the CVUA. As I had to clean up the mess it was in a couple of years ago, I am still concerned with it. I'd really appreciate if you would remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, moderate your tone, and avoid making typos that could be construed in the wrong light. Thanks. Kudpung (not logged in - editing from an insecure public WiFi) --110.78.142.69 (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Kudpong, I'd ask that you not read tone into the written word, as it's so very easy to fall into the trap of misconstruing tone. Someone asking me a question on my talk page is in no way a "concern" of the CVUA, regardless of its topic. My talk page is my talk page and you'll have to explain why you believe that someone talking to me, a trusted editor on this project, represents such a threat to the stability (aka stagnation) of the CVUA that you feel you needed to intervene on my behalf. A simple acknowledgement that you mistakenly overstepped instead of your current defensive posture would go a long way to closing this topic. As part of a collaborative project, you can rest easy knowing that I will absolutely reach out to others whenever I have a question. I rely upon the collaborative nature of the project nearly every day. In fact, during another recent conversation I had with you, you recently went to great lengths to talk about the fact that the CVUA does not need clerking, and is "better this way", this despite your apparent desire to clerk the CVUA.

I'll make that easier for you. I'm going to assist this one last editor, and then I am going to retire from the CVUA. Fighting vandalism is what I spend the vast majority of my time on WP doing, but I don't have the time for this type of conversation. I find admins who feel as though they need to supervise me tedious and I have neither the temperament nor the time for tedium. Once more, I politely ask that you please discontinue responding to messages on my talk page that are directed to me. Thank you. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you again to refrain from your disguised personal attacks. Like you I have neither the temperament nor the time for tedium and certainly none for perceived indignity about who does what on Wikipedia. Do not post here again. KudpungMobile (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up!

Hi, I'm Anupmehra and I noticed while patrolling new pages that you apparently, mistakenly created KudpungMobile/vector.js in the mainspace instead your user-space. I'm unable to move it to User:KudpungMobile/vector.js, may you please do it yourself as you've tools to do so. Thank you! -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do thatmove for you, but got a message:

You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The desired destination uses a different content model. Cannot convert from wikitext to JavaScript.

So I have deleted it - I gather you created it by copying from your main vector.js file, so you should be able to start again. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vigilance everyone. It's nice to know that there are people who watch and care. --KudpungMobile (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did something similar few days ago. I moved User:Jim Cartar/AfD.js to User:Jim Cartar/AfD closer.js and I'm surprised to see that it moved without leaving redirect. I wondered if I suddenly became admin

. Jim Carter 18:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...

Hi Kudpung :) Good to see you around. Just wanted to leave a note that post your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Rajesultanpur, I added a few sources to the article. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 11:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification question about "landing page" features and location, &c

Hi. You have a new message here — I left you a question. Gryllida (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey College, Malvern

Thanks for what you said on my talk page :) Since I got reverted yet again, mind dragging the mop out? John F. Lewis (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Hi, I'm curious as to why you gave template-protection to Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. As a subpage of Template:Editnotices it's inherently template-prot, because of the entry in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose64, Thanks for the heads up. I realise now of course that only admins (and template editors) can edit page notices. Must have slipped my mind while I was working on an alternative idea for a banner. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Active admin attrition

Hi Kudpung. I noticed your comment about only losing ten admins per annum, and thought I'd update some stats of mine. There is huge possibly seasonal variation in the figure for active admins so I have been taking the figures for 31st Dec each year. Some sorted of average for each quarter would be better, but these make sense to me. No human organisation other than an isolated tribe can really maintain a 2% attrition level, my view is that we will hit serious wkigeneration conflict long before we run out of admins. Looking at our stats I'm reminded of the great British Beer festival. The stewards at the end were all grey haired types old enough to be from CAMRA's founding generation, by contrast I was obviously much older than the rest of the drunken crowd they were stewarding. So we have an unhealthy situation, but one that could last a very long time, though not as long as if we were only losing ten a year net. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin attrition

Active Admins
Year	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Inactive or desysopped (net)	n/a	24^[1]	22	25	96	382	263	194	179
Inactive or desysopped%	n/a	14%^[2]	6%	3%	9%	28%	22%	18%	21%
Change (net)%	n/a		151.7%	100.6%	35.6%	2.7%	-6.2%	-7.7%	-12%
"Semi-active" admins >=1 edit in last 90 days but < 30 edits in last 60 days ^[3]	n/a					283	421	496	543	519	571	555	539	482
Inactive admins ^[4]	n/a								439
"Active" admins at end of year (EOY) 30 edits or more in last 60 days ^[5]	n/a	143	360	722	979	1,005	943	870	766	744	674	633	585	582	541	543	514	499	511	470	495

NB. Active admins from User:NoSeptember/Admin stats and Revision history of Wikipedia:List of administrators

^ Over three years not one
^ Over three years not one
^ semi-active admins first calculated as 198 on 8/6/2007
^ Admins with no edits in last 90 days = admins - semi-active admins - "active" admins
^ active admins peaked at 1021 on 28/2/2008

Thanks for this WSC. Makes sense and it looks as if we're going to end up with an ageing admin park, especially if folks like me and DGG are still going strong in 20 years, though I don't know if I'm still going to be wanting to edit much when I'm 85. Still, there will be people like Harry who will still only be in their early 40s. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long after thee and I have shuffled off the mortal coil, or been blocked for editing whilst suffering from Alzheimers, the younger part of the first generation of admins will be retiring circa 2060 (assuming retirement age will be 70 by then). I predict that many will become somewhat reactivated in their retirement and the pedia could have something of a swansong for a decade or two. So all things being equal we have to fix RFA by 2075. Though by then all sorts of things might have happened, we might have life extension, Artificial Intelligences as admins, alien contact and merger with the Encyclopaeda Galactica, lose our Google top spot to the Britannica, IMDB or a Chinese interloper using computerised translation, or just perhaps we will have admin reform. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about your conclusion that many of the college-age admins now will be active in 50 years. Heck, so much could change in my life in 50 years that I have no idea what on Earth (or even maybe not on Earth) I'll be doing then. I don't think we can say that us college-age admins will become active again on retirement, because there's simply too many unknowns.

Anyways, one of the reasons I decided to apply in June was that I saw that some tasks, such as RPP, XfD, and PROD were getting horribly backlogged all the time, even though we have over 600 active admins. Although the net loss of admins is not too high, the net loss of active admins is, I think, a more important statistic. It's easy for somebody to make one or two edits per month and still be an admin, yet do nothing in admin areas. I'm worried that this number is dropping more rapidly, and I think that focusing on trying to get some of the inactive admins more involved again would be a great first step, if they have time. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know some people here who became admins when in high school, and might still be with us fifty years from now. Naturally, some of them will get too busy in college ; even larger will get too busy while they are establishing themselves in their career. But WereSpielChequers is I think right that people will become more active after retirement.

I'm not concerned about the number of admins--we have more admins than we need (the problem is that few of us want to work with some of the less interesting routines--those are the ones that get backlogged.) We can do without admins, but not without people working on content.

Speaking personally, I have been able to avoid frustration by switching from one field of activity to another every few months. I am, for example, eager to be able to escape AfC, and I will as soon as I've convinced a few more people to join in doing it carefully. I think I want next to follow my original intent as an admin, auditing speedy. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher in Sweden needs help

Hi, Kudpung! I see that you are active with the Schools program here. I was wondering if you can suggest someone to help a user named User:Karin Steen, a teacher in Sweden, who has been trying to set up something to use Wikipedia in her classes. I encountered her when she launched this into mainspace as an article. It was obviously not an article so it got moved to a draft. But apparently what she had in mind was some kind of overall structure to which her students could link while working in their sandboxes. She then asked me on my talk page for help, but I haven't a clue. Do you want to help her set something up, or can you suggest someone who could? If you don't have time or inclination to deal with this, just let me know and I will ask someone else. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN, Whether she wants to edit the en.Wiki or another one, the best place for her to obtain support of this kind is from the Swedish Wikipedia chapter at http://www.wikimedia.se/. Chapters offer strong support for local education programmes.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll tell her. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Featured content: Oil paintings galore

In the media: Indian political editing, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Congressional chelonii

Recent research: 99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary

Traffic report: Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland

WikiProject report: GAN reviewers take note: competition time

Arbitration report: Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education

Hub Network protection

I personally think the full-protection of Hub Network was not only overkill, but bad faith on the part of the requestee per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AdamDeanHall. Could it be reduced to semi-protection? ViperSnake151 Talk 18:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vipersnake151. It's bad faith to protect the article. Besides, the Discovery Family logo made its internet debut today in the form of a JPG. Have a look. And please unprotect the article. Thanks. ~~LDE JRuff~~ 22:35, 29 September, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to unprotecting now but I do not have access to my admin account from this computer. Perhaps you can ask someone else. KudpungMobile (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Talk:Hub Network#Protected edit request on 29 September 2014. @Kudpung: I can unprot it if you give me the nod. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still hasn't been unprotected. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 military intervention against ISIS Protection

You previously granted semi-protection for one week to 2014 military intervention against ISIS. In an apparent attempt to circumvent that protection, a new mirror article has been created here: 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq. DocumentError (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone to AfD. Nothing I can do about that. Can't vote or comment there because I'm involved. --KudpungMobile (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh, okay - sorry for the bother DocumentError (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Over three years not one

[2] Over three years not one

[3] semi-active admins first calculated as 198 on 8/6/2007

[4] Admins with no edits in last 90 days = admins - semi-active admins - "active" admins

[5] tive admins peaked at 1021 on 28/2/2008

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]