Chokh Film Society, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology :
This page should not be speedy deleted because this follows the guidelines of Wikipedia Credible claim of significance. This page is falls under the catagorization of the pages linked bellow: Film Society which also redirects to another vallid page of that same listing from different institution: Dhaka University Film Society. Please restore the text and page so that other contributers may help building the page with valid references and links. Help me understand what changes to make for the validation of this page. Thank You. Ratuls21 ( talk) 11:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
for your no nonsense and polite interaction with a newish editor over Zachary Quack Minimonster, thankyou.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
16:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
As you can see I have been working on Leigh Academy Rainham, and considering how to write articles on multi-academy trusts. The Leigh Academies Trust has some interesting features but has 'hoovered' up many of the schools I have governed or worked in. I have previously avoided editing those for COI reasons but yesterday I looked at Crown Woods School. The notable building (2600 pupil ILEA 1958 comp) has been flattened and rebuilt as three of possibly 4 separate schools with in schools. It is a former school. The new build are at the far end of the playing fields, the entrance is onm a different road. The intake has changed. It has had a totally management change, and has been renamed 3 times. It announces it was re-founded. Way back in 2014, the article became a redirect and most of the information in the article I remember has been lost. a. we need that article back, b. can it be right that a MAT can totally erase a school, with a proud successful history, and replace it with a stub. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 20:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
If it's still the same school..:: Please go ahead and rephrase it; I may get there first.
This document is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Hi Kudpung, came across these two newly created primary school articles: De Bohun Primary School & Children's Centre and Danegrove School - both seem to mention grade II listed but I'm not sure if this is notable enough to have its own article and can be covered in locality? I'm not sure, what do you think? Steven (Editor) ( talk) 23:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Kudz - do you think I’m qualified to help with this? Atsme Talk 📧 13:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Kudpung.
Thanks for your message.
Can I work with you to improve this article? You seem well placed to do this.
Firstly though, I want to hold my hands up and say that some of the edits done under my username were inappropriate any many reflect a lack of experience editing Wikipedia. Basically, I accept that I haven't gone about editing this article in the best way, for which I apologise.
Regarding the COI: I declared this as soon as I became aware of the requirement to do so. For full disclosure, I worked at the subject's design studio full time until 2015. Since then I have been a freelancer and he has, from time to time, been one of my clients. However, Wikipedia contributions have been done in my (highly valued!) spare time.
Regarding the 'stalemate' reached with another editor over this article: I have read - and done my best to fully understand the implications of - lots of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nevertheless, some of my edits were amended very clumsily (thus creating further problems) while others were reverted for reasons I can only surmise as to. The overall result has been detrimental to the accuracy of the article and it is this that I stated I do not have time for, ie the feeling of pedaling hard to move backwards.
So, a collaborative approach seems like the obvious way forward. For my part, I have a lot of knowledge of the subject matter plus - if it's appropriate - the use of material such as original photos which could improve the article. Moreover, although I have very limited time to do this, I cannot stand leaving a task unfinished!
With kind regards,
Ace Morgan 16:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acemorgan ( talk • contribs)
Hi Kudpung. I have seen in the past that you have been heavily involved in the RfA process. I notice in some RfAs (the current GRuban one being an example), that the act of people simultaneously !voting while issues are being surfaced/thrashed-out is not always a good way to conduct an RfA. I also noticed that sometimes we never really get a full statement from the Candidate on who they are (although, we expect the noms to do it for them, but even that can fail as per the Rexx RfA). However, I was struck when I went to the ArbCom elections page that the environment corrects these issues. Questions are asked on one page, Candidates are discussed on another page, and the Candidate makes a statement on a third page - and all done in advance before !voting. My understanding is that there is also a "higher-bar" around checking of eligibility to !vote at ArbCom. My question is whether this ArbCom structure would be a better structure for RfAs? Britishfinance ( talk) 14:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent, thank you for your input at GR’s RfA. I must admit, my disappointment in the entire process is beyond words, but on a positive note, I will add with sincerity that I have not experienced a better, more fun and helpful collaboration with any editor as I have with GRuban. Based on my editing experiences with him (and many other editors have acknowledged similar) I see an editor who was honest to a fault. What I see as the reason for the giant snowball effect is a general misunderstanding when defining the term; GRuban understood it to mean harmless WP ( talk page stalker), and the subject saw it is as unwelcome hounding. The description of the activity presented from the subject’s perspective triggered a great deal of mistrust in the candidate, and that is sad. The few who were involved apparently had their minds made up to not accept his apology.
For me, the first thing that came to mind when I saw the first oppose was “uh oh, a sock”, and then after digging deeper into the edits came Wikipedia:Tarage's Law because of the articles that were involved, but with one exception: it began rather than ended with that type of article/editors in this instance. GRuban inadvertently walked into quicksand, and the more he struggled to be free, the deeper he sank. What I find most disappointing is how quickly some in the community dismissed his 14 yrs. of excellent contributions because of a rare mistake, and how quickly so many chose to believe the oppose comment by the sock who changed the direction of that RfA and started the snowball rolling downhill.
To say I’m sad and disappointed over what happened would be an understatement, especially considering how easy it is for editors to do a quick editor interaction check and see the actual exchanges rather than immediately accepting the opposes at face value. I’m not saying the editor did not feel what they felt - sometimes our past experiences can create bigger than life perceptions when, in this case, it was not much more than an annoyance like what we all have experienced (and will continue to experience) in WP’s open editing, collaborative environment - and I’m referring to an editor showing up to revert our edit(s) or make a correction that introduces a mistake in an article we worked hard to get right. Atsme Talk 📧 17:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent, thanks for the response. I agree that an open-ended process would not be appropriate. However, a process which is as you say unpleasant, time-consuming and intrusive
, is also, because of the artificially compressed time-scale, very unfair. Even in my short time here, I have seen characters appear at RfAs who are clearly socks, and who are there to game-the-system, and spread an allegation that can take root. Obviously, if a candidate has "skeletons in the closet", then even it is via a sock, it is still an issue. However, in the compressed time-frame, these issues are sometimes not properly investigated before closure? Put another way, if a candidate has spent 10-years on WP and put themselves forward at RfA where some controversial/complex issue emerges – are we saying that candidate would rather stick with the 7 days as opposed to having another re-list, or the benefit of a prior 7-days or Q&A before !voting? We don't enforce such a compressed timescale in any other deletion process in WP (that I know of), and yet, to my understanding, RfA is accepted(?) to be the most broken decision-making process in WP? Why are we so unwilling to take any learnings from other less-broken WP decision-making processes (e.g. the re-list at AfD, or the pre-list at ArbCom elections), and assume that the RfA process is in some way "optimal", but yet also most broken? That seems contradictory? However, I accept that I don't have your experience in area, so perhaps what I am saying is just wrong, and I appreciate you and Kudpung/Xeno (above) responding on it. thanks.
Britishfinance (
talk)
17:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
truly awful. unlike any other major decision making process in WP - all of which either have (1) a pre-vote discussion period (ArbCom, even ANI informally), or (2) a re-list feature. There is a contradiction between the idea that changes to RFA to make it more like other major WP decision making processes (that are considered fine), would make RFA awful, when it already is awful, imho? Thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 21:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The WMF is determined to widen the gap between themselves and the communities. Bcause it is a non-profit, and like all non prifts, the funds they have at their disposal are easy-come-easy-go because unlike a company, they are not driven by sales to survive. And for that reason the WMF isn't populated by people who are professionals at making a profit - they are a bunch of modern 68ers just playing at running a business. For all the good they do they would be better off sitting on the floor, smoking a joint, drinking cheap wine, eating their eco burgers, and playing Monopoly. In Iridescent's own words, :
Pretty much every significant setback in Wikipedia's history can be traced directly to someone at the WMF who thinks they're being helpful trying to force their preferred change rather than just suggesting a broad direction and allowing the cats to herd themselves. The traditional ineptness of the WMF's senior management isn't a flaw, it's a feature.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and before I archive it, this is what I replied to Buster7, two months ago:
I followed the FRAMBAN issue quite closely (and still do) but hold back as much as I can from commenting. I'm more vociferous here (and got some results), but not based on the editor herself but rather on the description and actual function (or lack of it) of the top job. Reminds me a bit of how her Maj had to be badgered by Blair to come to London following Diana's death (nobody normally dares to tell the monarch what to do). The richer these celebs get, the less they appear to be inclined to care about the minions whose unpaid work generates the funds. See also Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff and the comments section.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Your statement at GRuban's talk page should be a benchmark of how to give support to an RfA candidate. Much to learn from you. Like the heading says, am floored. Warmly, Lourdes 03:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised that I find myself here writing this, being an admin and all, but you are not above the rules, so you can stick this in your pipe and smoke it: do not make personal attacks, especially towards people who are no longer her to defend themselves, " by referring to someone as a troll". You may have had crossed words here, and you may have come away a little bruised, but that now does not give you the damned right to start attacking someone who can't answer back. Like him or not, Eric was one of our best writers, and in Horncastle's short time here, he did more for article improvement than most ever will, and in that I include the blocking admin. Thank you. Cassianto Talk 07:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) : Cassianto Don't use PA yourself to justify your complaints of perceived PA by others. You are not above the rules even if you are another prolific FA builder and 'unblockable'. If you knew the extent of the totally unprovoked PA and harrassment I suffered for years at the hands of Eric Corbett, you wouldn't be saying this. But because he had become one of the FA 'unblockables' I had to keep my trap shut. Horncastle was deliberately breaking every rule - tough for you if he turned out to be someone you like. Wales made a speech about it at a Wikimania and there was no prize for guessing whom he war referring to. I find it extremely odd that you can so vehemently defend one of the rudest users Wikipedia ever had, and his pathetic socking. If you grace this page with your comments again, please have the courtesy to remain polite rather than behave like Corbett. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, Regarding Template:ACE2019 - unless there was an election commissioner public ruling that said you must withdraw your guide you should not have to (please link to where this was declared because there was no prohibition on it in the RFC). Notably, at least one other candidate has a guide there now. If you want to not link it for any reason, that is certainly fine though. — xaosflux Talk 12:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
AFAIK Library Genesis does not require any registration. You should be able to download it following one of the links here: [2]. The most you may have to do is a captcha. Let me know if this still doesn't work. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you rev/delete the personal attacks there? It's loathsome stuff. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 02:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Worth a look. User:John.Jones12345678901. I just caught this by accident. scope_creep Talk 12:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Remember Wikimania 2013? I've just realised that the HK Polytechnic U. which is currently in the news is the same place. A remarkable change of fortune, eh? Andrew D. ( talk) 19:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, could you please consider acting on this repost, this user is being quite disruptive despite multiple warnings. Thanx, - FlightTime ( open channel) 00:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
If you could un-SALT Ellington Management Group, I think Draft:Ellington Management Group is ready to be in the main namespace. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 ( talk) 00:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me. I would like this article to remain in Wikipedia as I think it’s an important one.I am willing to modify the article as early as possible.( Angunnu ( talk) 10:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC))
Ok.
I have edited out the original article.Kindly see if it’s ok.( Angunnu ( talk) 10:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC))
Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) . I have rewritten the whole article.Think it’s lesser now.Kindly do the needful ( Angunnu ( talk) 11:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC))
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
Thank you very much for copyediting the
Fortification of Frankfurt article! I am amazed by the result of community collaboration. It is a heartwarming experience to see the
third of our five pillars so clearly in practice; I feel the spirit of Wikipedia in every paragraph of the text. ![]() |
here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_Flooding_By_A_Member:-- DBig Xrayᗙ 07:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Chokh Film Society, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology :
This page should not be speedy deleted because this follows the guidelines of Wikipedia Credible claim of significance. This page is falls under the catagorization of the pages linked bellow: Film Society which also redirects to another vallid page of that same listing from different institution: Dhaka University Film Society. Please restore the text and page so that other contributers may help building the page with valid references and links. Help me understand what changes to make for the validation of this page. Thank You. Ratuls21 ( talk) 11:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
for your no nonsense and polite interaction with a newish editor over Zachary Quack Minimonster, thankyou.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
16:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
As you can see I have been working on Leigh Academy Rainham, and considering how to write articles on multi-academy trusts. The Leigh Academies Trust has some interesting features but has 'hoovered' up many of the schools I have governed or worked in. I have previously avoided editing those for COI reasons but yesterday I looked at Crown Woods School. The notable building (2600 pupil ILEA 1958 comp) has been flattened and rebuilt as three of possibly 4 separate schools with in schools. It is a former school. The new build are at the far end of the playing fields, the entrance is onm a different road. The intake has changed. It has had a totally management change, and has been renamed 3 times. It announces it was re-founded. Way back in 2014, the article became a redirect and most of the information in the article I remember has been lost. a. we need that article back, b. can it be right that a MAT can totally erase a school, with a proud successful history, and replace it with a stub. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 20:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
If it's still the same school..:: Please go ahead and rephrase it; I may get there first.
This document is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Hi Kudpung, came across these two newly created primary school articles: De Bohun Primary School & Children's Centre and Danegrove School - both seem to mention grade II listed but I'm not sure if this is notable enough to have its own article and can be covered in locality? I'm not sure, what do you think? Steven (Editor) ( talk) 23:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey, Kudz - do you think I’m qualified to help with this? Atsme Talk 📧 13:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Kudpung.
Thanks for your message.
Can I work with you to improve this article? You seem well placed to do this.
Firstly though, I want to hold my hands up and say that some of the edits done under my username were inappropriate any many reflect a lack of experience editing Wikipedia. Basically, I accept that I haven't gone about editing this article in the best way, for which I apologise.
Regarding the COI: I declared this as soon as I became aware of the requirement to do so. For full disclosure, I worked at the subject's design studio full time until 2015. Since then I have been a freelancer and he has, from time to time, been one of my clients. However, Wikipedia contributions have been done in my (highly valued!) spare time.
Regarding the 'stalemate' reached with another editor over this article: I have read - and done my best to fully understand the implications of - lots of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nevertheless, some of my edits were amended very clumsily (thus creating further problems) while others were reverted for reasons I can only surmise as to. The overall result has been detrimental to the accuracy of the article and it is this that I stated I do not have time for, ie the feeling of pedaling hard to move backwards.
So, a collaborative approach seems like the obvious way forward. For my part, I have a lot of knowledge of the subject matter plus - if it's appropriate - the use of material such as original photos which could improve the article. Moreover, although I have very limited time to do this, I cannot stand leaving a task unfinished!
With kind regards,
Ace Morgan 16:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acemorgan ( talk • contribs)
Hi Kudpung. I have seen in the past that you have been heavily involved in the RfA process. I notice in some RfAs (the current GRuban one being an example), that the act of people simultaneously !voting while issues are being surfaced/thrashed-out is not always a good way to conduct an RfA. I also noticed that sometimes we never really get a full statement from the Candidate on who they are (although, we expect the noms to do it for them, but even that can fail as per the Rexx RfA). However, I was struck when I went to the ArbCom elections page that the environment corrects these issues. Questions are asked on one page, Candidates are discussed on another page, and the Candidate makes a statement on a third page - and all done in advance before !voting. My understanding is that there is also a "higher-bar" around checking of eligibility to !vote at ArbCom. My question is whether this ArbCom structure would be a better structure for RfAs? Britishfinance ( talk) 14:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent, thank you for your input at GR’s RfA. I must admit, my disappointment in the entire process is beyond words, but on a positive note, I will add with sincerity that I have not experienced a better, more fun and helpful collaboration with any editor as I have with GRuban. Based on my editing experiences with him (and many other editors have acknowledged similar) I see an editor who was honest to a fault. What I see as the reason for the giant snowball effect is a general misunderstanding when defining the term; GRuban understood it to mean harmless WP ( talk page stalker), and the subject saw it is as unwelcome hounding. The description of the activity presented from the subject’s perspective triggered a great deal of mistrust in the candidate, and that is sad. The few who were involved apparently had their minds made up to not accept his apology.
For me, the first thing that came to mind when I saw the first oppose was “uh oh, a sock”, and then after digging deeper into the edits came Wikipedia:Tarage's Law because of the articles that were involved, but with one exception: it began rather than ended with that type of article/editors in this instance. GRuban inadvertently walked into quicksand, and the more he struggled to be free, the deeper he sank. What I find most disappointing is how quickly some in the community dismissed his 14 yrs. of excellent contributions because of a rare mistake, and how quickly so many chose to believe the oppose comment by the sock who changed the direction of that RfA and started the snowball rolling downhill.
To say I’m sad and disappointed over what happened would be an understatement, especially considering how easy it is for editors to do a quick editor interaction check and see the actual exchanges rather than immediately accepting the opposes at face value. I’m not saying the editor did not feel what they felt - sometimes our past experiences can create bigger than life perceptions when, in this case, it was not much more than an annoyance like what we all have experienced (and will continue to experience) in WP’s open editing, collaborative environment - and I’m referring to an editor showing up to revert our edit(s) or make a correction that introduces a mistake in an article we worked hard to get right. Atsme Talk 📧 17:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent, thanks for the response. I agree that an open-ended process would not be appropriate. However, a process which is as you say unpleasant, time-consuming and intrusive
, is also, because of the artificially compressed time-scale, very unfair. Even in my short time here, I have seen characters appear at RfAs who are clearly socks, and who are there to game-the-system, and spread an allegation that can take root. Obviously, if a candidate has "skeletons in the closet", then even it is via a sock, it is still an issue. However, in the compressed time-frame, these issues are sometimes not properly investigated before closure? Put another way, if a candidate has spent 10-years on WP and put themselves forward at RfA where some controversial/complex issue emerges – are we saying that candidate would rather stick with the 7 days as opposed to having another re-list, or the benefit of a prior 7-days or Q&A before !voting? We don't enforce such a compressed timescale in any other deletion process in WP (that I know of), and yet, to my understanding, RfA is accepted(?) to be the most broken decision-making process in WP? Why are we so unwilling to take any learnings from other less-broken WP decision-making processes (e.g. the re-list at AfD, or the pre-list at ArbCom elections), and assume that the RfA process is in some way "optimal", but yet also most broken? That seems contradictory? However, I accept that I don't have your experience in area, so perhaps what I am saying is just wrong, and I appreciate you and Kudpung/Xeno (above) responding on it. thanks.
Britishfinance (
talk)
17:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
truly awful. unlike any other major decision making process in WP - all of which either have (1) a pre-vote discussion period (ArbCom, even ANI informally), or (2) a re-list feature. There is a contradiction between the idea that changes to RFA to make it more like other major WP decision making processes (that are considered fine), would make RFA awful, when it already is awful, imho? Thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 21:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The WMF is determined to widen the gap between themselves and the communities. Bcause it is a non-profit, and like all non prifts, the funds they have at their disposal are easy-come-easy-go because unlike a company, they are not driven by sales to survive. And for that reason the WMF isn't populated by people who are professionals at making a profit - they are a bunch of modern 68ers just playing at running a business. For all the good they do they would be better off sitting on the floor, smoking a joint, drinking cheap wine, eating their eco burgers, and playing Monopoly. In Iridescent's own words, :
Pretty much every significant setback in Wikipedia's history can be traced directly to someone at the WMF who thinks they're being helpful trying to force their preferred change rather than just suggesting a broad direction and allowing the cats to herd themselves. The traditional ineptness of the WMF's senior management isn't a flaw, it's a feature.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and before I archive it, this is what I replied to Buster7, two months ago:
I followed the FRAMBAN issue quite closely (and still do) but hold back as much as I can from commenting. I'm more vociferous here (and got some results), but not based on the editor herself but rather on the description and actual function (or lack of it) of the top job. Reminds me a bit of how her Maj had to be badgered by Blair to come to London following Diana's death (nobody normally dares to tell the monarch what to do). The richer these celebs get, the less they appear to be inclined to care about the minions whose unpaid work generates the funds. See also Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff and the comments section.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Your statement at GRuban's talk page should be a benchmark of how to give support to an RfA candidate. Much to learn from you. Like the heading says, am floored. Warmly, Lourdes 03:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised that I find myself here writing this, being an admin and all, but you are not above the rules, so you can stick this in your pipe and smoke it: do not make personal attacks, especially towards people who are no longer her to defend themselves, " by referring to someone as a troll". You may have had crossed words here, and you may have come away a little bruised, but that now does not give you the damned right to start attacking someone who can't answer back. Like him or not, Eric was one of our best writers, and in Horncastle's short time here, he did more for article improvement than most ever will, and in that I include the blocking admin. Thank you. Cassianto Talk 07:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) : Cassianto Don't use PA yourself to justify your complaints of perceived PA by others. You are not above the rules even if you are another prolific FA builder and 'unblockable'. If you knew the extent of the totally unprovoked PA and harrassment I suffered for years at the hands of Eric Corbett, you wouldn't be saying this. But because he had become one of the FA 'unblockables' I had to keep my trap shut. Horncastle was deliberately breaking every rule - tough for you if he turned out to be someone you like. Wales made a speech about it at a Wikimania and there was no prize for guessing whom he war referring to. I find it extremely odd that you can so vehemently defend one of the rudest users Wikipedia ever had, and his pathetic socking. If you grace this page with your comments again, please have the courtesy to remain polite rather than behave like Corbett. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, Regarding Template:ACE2019 - unless there was an election commissioner public ruling that said you must withdraw your guide you should not have to (please link to where this was declared because there was no prohibition on it in the RFC). Notably, at least one other candidate has a guide there now. If you want to not link it for any reason, that is certainly fine though. — xaosflux Talk 12:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
AFAIK Library Genesis does not require any registration. You should be able to download it following one of the links here: [2]. The most you may have to do is a captcha. Let me know if this still doesn't work. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you rev/delete the personal attacks there? It's loathsome stuff. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 02:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Worth a look. User:John.Jones12345678901. I just caught this by accident. scope_creep Talk 12:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Remember Wikimania 2013? I've just realised that the HK Polytechnic U. which is currently in the news is the same place. A remarkable change of fortune, eh? Andrew D. ( talk) 19:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, could you please consider acting on this repost, this user is being quite disruptive despite multiple warnings. Thanx, - FlightTime ( open channel) 00:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
If you could un-SALT Ellington Management Group, I think Draft:Ellington Management Group is ready to be in the main namespace. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 ( talk) 00:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me. I would like this article to remain in Wikipedia as I think it’s an important one.I am willing to modify the article as early as possible.( Angunnu ( talk) 10:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC))
Ok.
I have edited out the original article.Kindly see if it’s ok.( Angunnu ( talk) 10:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC))
Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) . I have rewritten the whole article.Think it’s lesser now.Kindly do the needful ( Angunnu ( talk) 11:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC))
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
Thank you very much for copyediting the
Fortification of Frankfurt article! I am amazed by the result of community collaboration. It is a heartwarming experience to see the
third of our five pillars so clearly in practice; I feel the spirit of Wikipedia in every paragraph of the text. ![]() |
here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_Flooding_By_A_Member:-- DBig Xrayᗙ 07:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)