User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug - Dec 2009

Edit Summaries

The point is well taken. I've chosen to have another attempt at Wikipedia, a lot has changed since I was last here, hopefully I can get up to speed quite quickly with the rules of the road. I chose to "dive in" on a hotly contested article, and have already been rebuked twice! Clearly I should have done more research on the detail of past policymaking, but please, don't hold that against me, with a few sign posts along the way I hope to rapidly become a constructive contributor- and the nature of the platform allows for easy rollback. I note since my last time, the qualifier "...but please be careful" has been added to WP:BB policy. I suppose that reflects what seems to be a dramatic increase in the number of editors on the platform, and as I proceed, I'll do so on the basis this is "new territory". Thanks. Leonig Mig (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

All constructive edits are welcome, but the Worcestershire project is run by a small but very active team, and accurate edit summaries help us to track what is going on and jump in with more contributions. The edit summary is one of the most basic and fundamental of all editing tools. If you have a profound interest in the county, you may wish to consider joining the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire - it needs all the help it can get, irrespective of any personal issues that some members might have. --Kudpung (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire meetup

I am willing: suggest a time and place. There is a page for WP meetups. One was proposed for Birmingham last autumnm but I do not think it quite happened. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation! I like the idea, but unfortunately won't be in the UK. Have a good visit, dig up lots more detail from the archives, and I hope you meet a few more wikipedians :-) GyroMagician (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Message deleted by request of original poster.--Kudpung (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:SouthWorcsCollLogo.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:SouthWorcsCollLogo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your concern over the use of copyright material in Wikipedia is much appreciated. However, this image is one of dozens of school logos I have uploaded recently, and a very brief, slightly closer look at the file you nominated for deletion may possibly have enabled you to rectify the situation yourself very easily.--Kudpung (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you likely know, many uploaders just don't bother to do everything properly and I don't always have the time, or inclination, to fix their mistakes though often I do add an appropriate licence and/or fair-use rationale where necessary and easy. No doubt you are aware that the burden of proof is actually on the uploader and not on other editors to do what should have done in the first place. Experienced editors, like yourself, may get miffed by occasionally getting such messages but for newer editors, getting them to fix their own mistakes can be a learning process whereby they will hopefully not repeat the same mistake. Apologies for ruffling your feathers; you have fixed it now anyway. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Bolwell

Dear User Kudpung (nice place, by the way), I have, as you are aware, had a rather unfortunate episode with The Lovely Mr Bolwell recently, the latest episode of which can be found here User_talk:Jeremy_Bolwell. It would appear that Mr Bolwell is incapable of listening or responding appropriately: you will gather that from the text of the rant, I'm sure. Whilst semi-amusing in its irony, it is clear that we're not going to get anywhere fast. I'm particularly concerned with semi-circular overlinks like this. There are more examples of linking of common nouns: Mr Bolwell still seems to think that linking 'woolen' is contributing somehow to the encyclopaedia. He also seems to think that we need to have a link to 'death', just in case that proves too taxing a concept for the average reader to be expected to know off-hand. He has in the past scolded me for using the word 'elucidate'. This introduces a somewhat difficult concept to me: at precisely what level is this encylcopaedia pitched? Anyway, I digress... Do you have any ideas as to the best way forward with this somewhat fractious writer? I don't want it to look like he's being 'bullied' in any way, given the aggressive victim-mentality under which he seems to be presently labouring. But this disruptive editing really ought to be nipped in the bud. Best regards, Fortnum (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks are generally intended to direct the visitor to further information that is complementary to an article's subject matter; the English language Wikipedia is pitched at native English speakers, and those of very near native English, who don't need Wikilinks to explain words that should be in every native speaker's personal vocabulary. Ghmyrtle and I have had another attempt at being understanding and providing some good advice at User_talk:Jeremy_Bolwell. However, there's nothing much more we can do except putting 'Last warning' templates on his talk page for any further dispruptive editing. Even though he's claiming WP:BITE, he is experienced enough to understand the implications. Reporting him (ARV) would, I feel, be counter productive at least for a while, as Jeremy is beginning to lose the civility plot. The projects that I am part of have members with full admin powers who can take a neutral standpoint; they are following these discussions and I'm sure they will do any necessary blocking when they see fit. Let's see how it goes.--Kudpung (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This approach seems very wise and proportionate. Thanks for the advice. By the way, the wikilink policy outlined above is how I'd understood it, so that's a relief. Cheers, Fortnum (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You will notice that Mr Bolwell has seen to fit to comment, in his (by now usual) inimitable style. I am beginning to wonder about him, frankly. I am attempting to be as flexible and understanding as possible, but these insults (possibly autonomic in nature) and apparent complete ignorance of the actual matter in hand are trying my patience. I am a big boy now, so I'm not crying myself to sleep over it, but I am a new editor here, and really wasn't expecting this sort of crap. Sorry to have dragged (and continue) to drag you into this silly little episode, but you seem to have been around here for a while and, thus, probably have a better idea of how things work. Is Mr Bolwell's attitude typical of your common or garden Wikipedian?!--Fortnum (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added another comment on User talk:Jeremy Bolwell and I'm going to leave it at that - to continue to reply to his claims of beginner innocence will just detract serious editors from their more constructive work, and may deter him from some of the better contributions he makes. If Jeremy persists in his overlinking, it will suffice to place generic warning templates on his talk page. His attitude is fortunately not typical of most Wikipedians, there are however many people that join this community for the wrong reasons, loneliness, and personality disorders. The worst offenders appear to be teenagers who vandalise school pages, young PhD students who have a high opinion of themselves, and people using the Wikipedia to promote their own work. The best thing to do when trouble starts brewing is to stay cool, factual, and impartial, and to back out even if feeling offended. It would of course be a different matter entirely if an accredited administrator were to misbehave.--Kudpung (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Water cure (therapy) disambiguation from Water cure (torture)

Regarding discussion on the above issue as found at the Talk: Water cure (therapy) page, I make the following observations and suggestions, copied verbatim from my comment there.

Firstly, the definition of Water Cure, as used in that article is misleading. Not because it is wrong. But because it is incomplete.

The first citation in the Water cure article refers to the Oxford English Dictionary, although no further referencing details are given. As readers will be aware, there are several versions of this dictionary, with the most complete being the multi-volume edition typically found only in libraries, to various abridged versions which are more commonly available (and affordable). The two-volume Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th ed., 2007) lists the definition for water-cure on page 3586, under the general listing for water (noun), alphabetically in the sub-listing for phrases. It states:

"Water-cure (a) a course of medical treatment by hydrotherapy; (b) a form of torture in which a person is forced to drink large quantities of water".

Thus, there are two primary uses of water: For therapy, and for torture. And thus, two primary definitions in relation to the the topic of discussion.

I would suggest that this gives us the basis for a solution, which is similar to that proposed by Kudpung (talk), with the exception that Water cure (therapy) remains as is, since the title already captures one of the two primary definitions. Thus:

Water cure to Water Cure (torture)
Water cure (therapy) remains as Water Cure (therapy)

This also makes the task easier in the first place. All we need to do is rename the Water cure article. By doing so, we (a) give the reader the two primary definitions, while (b) keeping with the original intentions of the article as being one about the use of water as a form of torture. I hope this is of some help.Wotnow (talk). Wotnow (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Water cure: torture vs therapy disambiguation completed. Two related projects pending

Hello Kudpung (talk). Following discussion that arose, on 2 June 2009, prompted by yourself, which pertained to either merging Water cure (torture) into Water torture, or disambiguation of Water cure (torture), from Water cure (therapy), I am pleased to inform you that this part of the disambiguation exercise is now complete, with some kind assistance from KuyaBriBri^Talk, who, armed with nothing more than Wikibizzo (no lightsaber, nuthin'), single-handedly took on a bot, and from MLauba (talk), who corrected my misguided methodology.

. It noted confusion arising from the fact that many people looking up Water Cure expect to find reference to a form of therapy. From this arose a discussion regarding renaming for disambiguation purposes: that is, to differentiate between water cure as a form of torture, and water cure as a form of therapy. Since an article called Water cure (therapy) already exists, the simplest option was the renaming of this article, which would then give the two primary definitions. That exercise is now complete.

There remain three more related projects, which I will attempt to help with, the first two of which you have commented on.

1. The Water cure (therapy) article is itself impoverished, and better merged into the hydrotherapy article.
2. The Water therapy article is also impoverished, and similarly better merged into the Hydrotherapy article. A review of the article's revision history indicates that anything else, such as redirection or proposed deletion, will result in edit-warring, which is in fact the main history of the article itself. But I think, per my comment on the matter, that incorporating the relevant part of its content as a caveat in a larger article, will cover all relevant bases.
3. The Hydrotherapy article itself needs work, but not because it is impoverished. It is very information dense, and primarily needs citations for existing text and to bring it more up-to-date from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and some re-structuring for ease of reading.

My intention is to contribute, insofar as possible, and in the process, incorporate the relevant portions from both of the above-mentioned articles, both of which are really no more than a paragraph or two in a larger article such as Hydrotherapy. I did a similar process with the merge of the Brachial Plexus Lesion article into the Brachial plexus injury article. Admittedly, there was general consensus of a need to merge in one direction or the other, and no edit-warring on that issue (by which I include unexplained removal of tags, or creation of side-issues to hinder good intentions). Nevertheless, I realised that (a) I was a novice at merging, and (b) I had no way of knowing beforehand whether merging in one direction versus the other would cause someone to take umbrage. So I simply worked on both articles simultaneously, adding citations to existing text, fleshing out bits of text, and cross-pollinating from both articles - both of which had useful and overlapping information- until both were identical. Then, having flagged which one I was going to merge, and with no controversy, I did the merge.

The Water therapy article is a different matter. As an exercise, it looks much simpler than the Brachial Plexus Lesion-Injury one. However, in this case there is a revision/edit-warring history, and related sensitivities to take into account. But again, if the main article incorporates the relevant information and spirit, reasonableness should prevail.Wotnow (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow.

Water cures & therapy

Hi Kuyabribri. Thanks for your comment. I'm glad to be of help. In some cases it's probably helpful if the person who completes a merge/redirect is different from the person who proposed it, especially in cases where it's clear that someone else may resent the idea for whatever reason. The Malvern Water article itself appears to be coming along nicely, although I'm not sure how much further contribution I'll be able to make to that one. Wikipedia may have no deadlines as such, but as we all know, life does. So I'm trying to do what I can while I can.

An article that I created (Captain R.T. Claridge) still has some missing bits such as when he was born, when he died, who he married (I gather he married twice, the second time around 1854), his children (at least two as far as I can gather, one of whom was definitely a daughter), and his early days. I have the impression he was indentured as a bootmaker, and did a stint as a wine merchant (unrelated to Claridge's hotel, started by different people) before he became involved in asphalt production and then hydropathy. But at present I lack credible citations for those sorts of things. I get some tantalising clues from a geneology site or two, but the remaining details appear locked up in pay-sites, and as I'm not a subscriber to any (my circumstances not permitting), that's as far as it goes.

Tacking back-and-forth amongst articles related to that era has yielded some good information (it was a remarkable period in recent history, with a combination of so many factors coming into play at the one time: e.g., industrialisation, hygiene and sanitation, improvements in medicine, building and roadworks etc, not to mention other things like socio-political issues that may have prevailed). I find it ironic that a man whose name pops up in numerous publications in the UK and USA, and also in Europe, has turned out to be so enigmatic, and so difficult to piece together biographical details on. It seems a paradox: to be of fame and yet unknown.

So with the hydrotherapy article, and maybe - just maybe - some further gains on the Claridge article, and one or two other things I'd like to work on, but with time runing against me, it's anyone's guess how much more I'll get done, but I'm going for it while I can.Wotnow (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Water therapy redirection

Regarding your suggestion on Talk: Water therapy that the article Water therapy be redirected, I agree. While the article's history is intriguing, the article itself is extremely brief, extremely narrow in scope (certainly not covering the broad category of water therapy) and contains no sources. Its sole merit is that it contains a caveat to mindless drinking of copious amounts of water - i.e. that water intoxication can and does occur.

Its use then, is as a caveat section in a larger article, which is what I propose to do with it. Wotnow (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Wellingborough

Hi Kudpung, I've made quite a few changes to the Wellingborough article, and I was wondering how close it is to a class B rating. Could you look over the article for a diffrent piont of view to mine, Thanks. Likelife (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look and I've copy edited a couple of sections on the fly. It isn't always possible to comply with the ideals of some hard-nosed editors, - often some of the 'required' information for articles about towns just isn't available. However, IMHO, there is still a lot that can be done to Wellingborough before it reaches B status, such as clearing up the debate about population. I lived in nearby Corby for a while, and I'm sure that Wellingborough town does not not have such a huge population. Things can change of course, but such details are available from the town or town centre parish council, and will even be provided broken down by electoral ward, and if not published by the town council web site, should be available from the Town Clerk's office or from the ONS. Although the Wellingborough.gov.uk website basically follows the rules for UK council websites, it is a mess and can't be relied upon. (Just look at its total loss of focus in its history section).
There are other editors who will insist that Wellingborough (town) and Welligborogh (borough) should constitute separate Wkipedia articles. I personally don't believe in creating articles for the sake of creating articles, and that's why we have the system of disambiguation and redirects. It could be that the actual town is one of the wards but this is not clear from the article.
Intro: The intro should address the major points of the article in such a way that it could be a stand-alone, very short encyclopedic entry. it should not include information that is not discussed in the body of the article, and does not need to include heavily detailed information that can be found in correctly completed infoboxes and elsewhere in the article.
Future Developments: From an encyclopaedic point of view, this is pure speculation, and has nothing to do with hard facts of the present or of history. Anyone really wanting this information will find it by following the respective links.
Lists: Note that bulleted lists a re frowned upon, and the effort is to turn these into paragraph of prose wherever possible. If they can't be, it's a sign that the info probably shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. See what I have done, for example, to Wards & Governance.
Schools: The list of primary schools is not required. See also how I have edited Education.
Tone: The overall tone of the article is still too conversational in many places, and therefore sounds unintentionally, like an author's point of view. Such passages must be either carefully reworded, sourced with references, or cut out altogether.
Amenities: detailed mentions of police & fire services, etc, are really only of local interest and their mention again tends to make the Wikipedia look like a residents' , or future residents' guidebook.
The list of notable residents should come at the end of the article just before 'References', 'External Links', and 'See also'.
For more ideas on getting to B status, do take a look at the Malvern, Worcestershire article which was the effort of hundreds of hours by a dedicated task force, several of whom are also members of your Northants project.
--Kudpung (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had another go at copyediting a couple of sections. the article is now looking quite good - we now need to keep it our watch lists to be sure that any irrelevant additions are quickly edited out.--Kudpung (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the page.Likelife (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Orphaned non-free image File:MalColLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MalColLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The image is no longer orphaned. Where I live, there is often a considerable delay between Internet access times. Please see Malvern College. Thanks, --Kudpung (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Isan edit

Got your reply: Thanks! --Pawyilee (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Julius Harrison

Hello Kudpung: Thank you, and thank you for starting the Julius Harrison article. He is an undeservedly neglected composer. Great Viola Sonata. I made some additional edits, especially to the discography now that the album covers are gone. Feel free to revert anything I've changed. I wish I had more accurate information at hand, ...also wish I were in Isan again. Hrdinský (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)