Archives | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
Turskellies
Hi Kudpung! You just commented on the page I created: Rosie Fellner. I'd welcome any advice on how to clean it up a little. What do you suggest? Thanks so much!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turskellies (talk • contribs) 06:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. I've cleaned up a lot of it - when you make Wikilinks you do not need to type the word twice. However, you must decide what are external sources and what are references - a lot of the content needs to be sourced because although the subject is a notable actress, unsourced information can, and probably will be, deleted. Check out the tags and see how to clean uo those naked URLs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Kudpung. I am still learning about how to make a better Wikipedia page. All the info I have about Rosie Fellner can be found in those links, so I guess they are all references...except for the main page for Bite The Ballot. Her contribution to that organization is found in the interview about her. I will keep my eyes peeled for future references/interviews/articles to add in the future. In the mean time, I'll take a look at how you structured the references. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turskellies (talk • contribs) 09:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
hi
I just had an ANI against me withdrawn and id like to discuss something, I would need an administrator thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, Ozzie10aaaa. So I have read the ANI report already. How can I help? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- 1 why was it brought to ANI (when all I did was answer a few questions and then withdrawn?
- 2 why by ooincidense is the editor that I banned last week from my talk page (
as cited in the ANI with link), commenting next to the person who brought the ANI in the first place (I had never been brought here)? coincidence --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry,Ozzie10aaaa, but I have no idea. For answers to these questions you will need to ask the people concerned. However, in your situation it might be best to just let it go. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- ok, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User scripts
Hi Kudpung, I'm replying here instead of at AN as I thought that probably not everyone in the project needed to know about the intricacies of your vector.js page. :) After a very cursory look at User:Kudpung/vector.js, I am guessing that while your scripts worked for you when you installed them, a combination of changes in the scripts themselves and changes in MediaWiki have resulted in one or more JavaScript errors occurring every time you load a page. Depending on the circumstances, one JavaScript error could prevent all your gadgets from running, so that would explain why your scripts haven't been working. I can see a few things that need changing just by glancing over the code, but I'll take a more thorough look through it to see if I can get it working properly and then get back to you with my findings. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, I didn't even have to save the page to find out the reason that your scripts aren't running at all - there's a JavaScript error right in your vector.js file itself. The problem is that you're trying to comment something out with an HTML comment like
<!-- code goes here -->
, but that type of comment is a syntax error in JavasScript files. Instead, you need to make comments that look like/* code goes here */
. I've tested that in my own vector.js and I got a lot of extra links suddenly, so it looks like that was your main problem, and I've fixed it here. If you notice anything else specifically not working, give me a shout and I'll look into it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)- Hi Strad. Thank you enormously for doing this for me. I'll check through all the scripts in the morning and if there is anything still not working I'll take you up on your kind offer. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- As per the AN thread, I've had a big ol' prune of User:Kudpung/vector.js, and it is now looking far leaner. I've removed Twinkle and the DRN script because they are global gadgets, and they should be loaded via preferences rather than through your vector.js page. I also removed a few duplicate entries, and scripts that pointed to Toolserver tools that no longer work. I also removed the old Delsort script, as it doesn't work, and you have Fox Wilson's new script installed anyway. Let me know if anything that you really need has gone, and I'll investigate. Also, although the page is simpler, it's not a guarantee that all the scripts that you load will work. Some of them may need updating before they will play nicely with changes in MediaWiki. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:Quarl/wikipage.js was the script that caused issues with popups and User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js does not work anymore. Everything else seems fine. NQ-test (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- @NQ-test: I just tested User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js, and it's working for me. Did you get any error messages? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Mr. Stradivarius: Odd. Now loading without any issues. - NQ (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @NQ-test: I just tested User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js, and it's working for me. Did you get any error messages? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- User:Quarl/wikipage.js was the script that caused issues with popups and User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js does not work anymore. Everything else seems fine. NQ-test (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- As per the AN thread, I've had a big ol' prune of User:Kudpung/vector.js, and it is now looking far leaner. I've removed Twinkle and the DRN script because they are global gadgets, and they should be loaded via preferences rather than through your vector.js page. I also removed a few duplicate entries, and scripts that pointed to Toolserver tools that no longer work. I also removed the old Delsort script, as it doesn't work, and you have Fox Wilson's new script installed anyway. Let me know if anything that you really need has gone, and I'll investigate. Also, although the page is simpler, it's not a guarantee that all the scripts that you load will work. Some of them may need updating before they will play nicely with changes in MediaWiki. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Strad. Thank you enormously for doing this for me. I'll check through all the scripts in the morning and if there is anything still not working I'll take you up on your kind offer. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Mr. Stradivarius:, @NQ-test:, TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js is redundant with the new New page Feed that was launched 2 years ago, Theoretially nobody should be working from the old new Pages list aLOTHOUGH I BELIEVE IT IS STILL OPERATIONAL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Mr. Stradivarius:, I belive all my scripts are working now. I spent yesterday wotking on AfD backlogs. I belive the script has a problem: when one selects 'relist' it enters the relist line on the AfD page twice. Not a big problem but if someone has time to fix it. Thanks again for all your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Inbox
![Mail-message-new.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20150617164313im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormac_Devlin
Hello Kudpung, you deleted Cormac Devlin the | discussion was ongoing with a number of contributions listed in the past hour, at least one "delete voter" had indicated they would reconsider if more evidence was presented. This was done. It might be appropriate for some of the contributors who voted "delete" to have an opportunity to consider evidence presented before a final conclusion is reached. Can you reconsider or what are the options? Quirinus X (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Quirinus. The discussion was was past its 'sell by' date by 20 days. I stand by my evaluation of the consensus which at time of closure was 'delete' according to the strength of the arguments presented (which may or may not necessarily be accompanied by one of the bot-recognised emboldened keywords . We are not compelled to keep AfD cases open indefinitely in order to take into account new evidenc/arguments that might be forthcoming. The option is for you to go to WP:DELREV - if you find that the closure was in conflict with policy at WP:AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Kudpung thanks for replying, I appreciate the article was there sometime, it had been re-listed a few times to generate a consensus as none existed, but just as one began to emerge today the discussion became closed (it was actually closed minutes after I posted an article two users requested). I think it would be reasonable and fair for WP to allow those who contributed and asked for more information to at least be allowed consider the information before a final decision. Notwithstanding the length of time the debate was open (and I have seen some open for months) given circumstances it seems the closure was premature, I would ask you again to reconsider and at least allow 7 days for people to view evidence. Quirinus X (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Quirinus, I do understand that you as creator may not wish this article to be deleted but your option now is to take your request to WP:DELREV. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for considering my request Kudpung. I won't be going down the WP:DELREV road (it's too time-consuming and I believe you acted in good faith), if new information arises I'll consider options then. Best Quirinus X (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Kudpung thanks for replying, I appreciate the article was there sometime, it had been re-listed a few times to generate a consensus as none existed, but just as one began to emerge today the discussion became closed (it was actually closed minutes after I posted an article two users requested). I think it would be reasonable and fair for WP to allow those who contributed and asked for more information to at least be allowed consider the information before a final decision. Notwithstanding the length of time the debate was open (and I have seen some open for months) given circumstances it seems the closure was premature, I would ask you again to reconsider and at least allow 7 days for people to view evidence. Quirinus X (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Kunlun Fight
And recreated again this time as Kunlun Fight(kickboxing). Db-reposts removed with abusive message on my talk page (removed).Peter Rehse (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Two 'only warnings': one for repeatedly recreating the salted pages and one for the verbal abuse. One more peep and he's out for the count. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks - normally I don't react so much but ...Peter Rehse (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- ...but sometimes you need to Peter, because it gives me more power to unilaterally stop the disruption without having to go through all the tralala of ANI. Thanks for bringing it to me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- I sent him to sit in his corner for 31h. DMacks (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, DMacks - I was in bed by then, had to catch a plane early this morning. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- Sigh. Kunlun Jue(Kickboxing).Peter Rehse (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sent back to his corner again - 1 month. DMacks, Peter Rehse please watch for block evasion, this guy probably isn't going to give up so easily. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh. Kunlun Jue(Kickboxing).Peter Rehse (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, DMacks - I was in bed by then, had to catch a plane early this morning. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I sent him to sit in his corner for 31h. DMacks (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- ...but sometimes you need to Peter, because it gives me more power to unilaterally stop the disruption without having to go through all the tralala of ANI. Thanks for bringing it to me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks - normally I don't react so much but ...Peter Rehse (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Community Change, inc.
How does the Community Change, inc. article not demonstrate importance. How can it be made to demonstrate importance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0l3rs (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know. As you do not appear to have created or edited such an article, and as a search reveals nothing, perhaps you would provide a working link to whatever it is you would like me to examine. And please sign your posts. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your thanks
Hi Kudpung! Long time no see . Could you do me a favour and keep Arrowsmith School on your watchlist for a while? The talk page there is self-explanatory re that editor's problematic behaviour as are my comments here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Voce. I read it all already (and the hist) and I'm following the action. I was curious because it's a bit off your usual stamping ground. You're doing extremely well there and it reminded me of a suggestion I made to you a couple of years ago. I don't suppose... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. Now you know why I prefer long-dead opera singers and the wacky shows they appeared in. I normally avoid anything to do with cognitive psychology or linguistics (my academic background). Who wants a busman's holiday? But I do occasionally venture into that area to rewrite articles, usually via copyright investigations or picked up at ANI where a brouhaha over a particular article has piqued my curiosity. Anyhow, I've pretty much finished re-writing/expanding Arrowsmith School. That talk page is very hard work, though. What with the random socks (one of whom posted harassment on my talk page which had to be oversighted), and the editor who rather fancies themself the owner of the article, despite what I suspect is deep ignorance of the subject. Ugh! I feel a 17th century forgotten opera beckoning me. The whole experience merely confirms why I haven't yet taken up your suggestion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Nomination
I would like to become an administrator on wikipedia. I have been reading articles on it since 2004 and I am ready to become one.I have edited many edits and imporved vast amounts of articles. However, someone hacked into my previous account and I had to start a new one recently
So allow me to be an administrator. I will make Wikipedia the best it can be. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasongeorgeronaldkushnerthefirst (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jasongeorgeronaldkushnerthefirst, this is your only edit. You have a choice: Either (1) go away and stop trolling or be blocked without further warning, or (2) come back under your main account with reasonable behaviour. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Userpages Fix
Hi Kudpung! Just a quick note to say that I have fixed a broken link on your policy section. It Read [[WP:AFC|] and I presume that it meant WP:AFC So I have changed it. If that is a problem just feel free to revert it. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
WP security
Hi Kudpung, I get a sense that our concerns about WP security are probably very similar. I see the only solution will have to be the creation of a new class of contributors, what I am now calling "neutrality certified" editors. A new class of proven, established, and "known" editors who would be the only editors allowed to edit, comment, or vote on any "sensitive" topics. Here is what I mean by "known":
- They would have to somehow prove who the "real person" is to WMF, and that proof would have to be able to be repeatedly re-verified by WMF, at its discretion. Obviously the providing of such proof would be rather arduous, but it could be done. For example, a driver's license scan emailed in accompanied by a Skype face to face talk.
- They would also have to declare in writing, which ever articles they may be "partial to", and why, and to update this file annually, and these "Partiality Declarations" (PD) would be a matter of public record, available to all editors.
- They would have to declare in their edit comments on any articles that they are "partial to" that "I have declared my partiality to this article in my public PD".
I strongly believe that such a new policy, properly and thoroughly enforced, would once and for all put an end to all of these Paid Editors and IP Gaming problems that we now have to deal with on a minute by minute basis.
Scott P. (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea in theory, Scott, but you'd never get consensus for it. I am 100% against any form of participation of IPs on RfA, but that's all really. Some of my closest friends, arbs, and crats whom I know well personally on several continents do not agree with me, but on most other things we usually support each other when we're making new policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- I agree on that point too. This is a decision that could never be "approved" by a general vote of contributors. Thus the problem. The only way that it could ever succeed would be by a pro-active move on the part of Jimbo Wales and WMF. Jimbo hates to do things like that, but unfortuntely, in this case, I see no other option. I've even broached the topic with Jimbo, and so far he understandably resists. If you look at my recent editing history regarding the E-Meter article, you might begin to get the gist of what is going on. Shortly after I conceded defeat in the E-Meter article, certain editors made a valliant attempt to have me banned from WP for life for my two edits to the E-Meter article. Amazing!! Of course my edits also happened to entirely remove the currently strong pro-Scientology slant of that article, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with their attempting to ban me from WP for life! Unfortunately, probably for security reasons, the entire ANI discussion, where they attempted to ban me, was wiped from public view. Perhaps as an admin, it may still be available to you, I don't know.
- At any rate, I would very much like to pursue this line of thought with you further, as I see that we may have some very mutual interests here.
-
- Thanks,
- Scott P. (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Not wiped from public view, simply archived as all cases are. It's here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Proposed block of Scott P.. You can do a name search of all the AN/ANI archives to find relevant cases. Liz Read! Talk! 14:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::Scott, I also know Jimbo (a bit) and several of the senior staff personally quite well (except the new CEO). Don't run away with the idea that they are particularly interested nowadays in what happens on the 300 or so individual Wikipedias and other Foundation projects. Most of what they do these days is develop software, maintain the servers, look after legalmatters, and disseminate the funds (which they don't o very well because there's nobody really in charge of it - at least that's what it looks like), especially on salaries and junkets for the staff, while ensuring that there is no recompense for the volunteers who actually do all the work for free. Jimbo is a great guy but understandably he only takes an occasional glimpse at his talk page and then selectively throws in the occasional comment on something that really interests him or a familiar user name that catches his eye - you might just as well try to get an audience with the queen or the prime minnister; he's just too busy with other stuff to stay glued to a computer screen full of en.Wiki all day like some of us idiots. BTW, ANI cases are never deleted, they are archived but they may not be easy to find unless soeone left you a permalink or you kept one yourself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes Kudpung, I know Jimbo a bit myself. Have corresponded with him over the years many times. I also know about his talk page status. He is truly a great guy, but when he started WP, I think he actually had no idea where it might take him, and the rules of the first few years of the project, that worked well then, may no longer work so well, now that WP has even supplanted Britannica. I did get the Prime Minister's ear in a private correspondence with him on this one, and yes, he did resist. Still, I believe that I may still have the favor of Jimbo to speak once more on this topic with him, but only if I had a significant number of Arbs and Admins on board. Thus this conversation. I've also spoken to poor Roger Davies about this, who slunk away with the exclamation "Way above my pay grade!" :Scott P. (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- PS: I found the record of the ANI talk. Am still learning the ropes around this end of WP. Thanks
-
- BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with you that it may also now be the time to start doling out some of those millions to more paid WMF editors too, but only WMF editors who remain absolutely and fully accountable to the rest of us. I believe "transparency" is the operative word here. Scott P. (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- What the WMF should be doing is increasing the scolarship budget so that every one of the 1,000 attendees gets their flight and hotel paid. We've done the math - it wouldn't make a dent in thetens of millions of surplus $$ the WKF doesn't know what to do with. No one should be paid for editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Right, nobody should get paid for adding "content", but the policing work, done by fully accountable and transparent editors, now that is something that I believe we would do well to start paying for. Why? Because I see some of these "compromised interests" gaining undue authority in WP by providing these services themselves, thus setting up WP for one very bad addiction. I hate to do policing work, and understandably most volunteers do as well. Who ever heard of a city where the cops were all on a volunteer basis? Maybe when WP was small-time, like a tiny village, then that model worked, but not now. Scott P. (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- PS: And once the "log-jam" is broken in WMF finance, scholarships along lines something like that might make imminent sense too. Scott P. (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I only have time for one more comment here. Regarding the scholarship proposal, it would seem to me that there are certainly some worthy contributors who deserve to go to the conference, but can't afford any part of the expense, or can't afford some part of the expense. These cases might deserve a scholarship. But I believe that those who could afford it, should probably pay their own way. Otherwise we might get 10,000 contributors howling for a vacation, and WP's image as a non-profit could conceivably come under question. Just my thought on that. I have to go for now. Thanks for your ear. Scott P. (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- If these matters concern you at all, please at least refer me to somebody whom you might think might be more interested in these matters than yourself. These matters seem pretty important to myself. I don't know about yourself. Whatever input you might be able to provide on this would certainly be most appreciated. Thanks Scott P. (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- What the WMF should be doing is increasing the scolarship budget so that every one of the 1,000 attendees gets their flight and hotel paid. We've done the math - it wouldn't make a dent in thetens of millions of surplus $$ the WKF doesn't know what to do with. No one should be paid for editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
-
Antonia Gerena Rivera
Thank you for your wisdom concerning this article. Longevitydude (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)