User talk:Kudpung/Archive un 2014

Hi Kudpung nice to meet you first i want to introduce my self my name is Albert Ong and i leave in Surabaya, Indonesia .before that i am sorry if my English is bad . I am the beginner of the Wikipedia contributor so i don't really know the Privacy and Policy . I just want to ask if i contribute (post) with my own word (not copy and paste) from other sources is that allowed or not ?

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertong27 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unfortunately you may not use material copied from other sources. If you wish to rewrite the article in your own words, you may, but you must avoid close paraphrasing. The content you provide must also be sourced to independent, reliable third-party sources. See: WP:CITE and WP:RS. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So looking at the page I posted on experiential Graphic Design, can you please explain what is copied from the original page as Idid change it from the original post, but there are words that are used in the official definition that cannot be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive Roux (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please fully read the deletion tag that has been placed on Experiential Graphic Design and then click on the link that says Duplication detector report. I think you'll find the result is self-evident. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what did it have to do with me? -No.Altenmann >t 01:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not Kudpung, but looking at the deleted history, I see that you created the article back on 30 June of 2005. Twinkle's built in scripts automatically notifies the article creator as a courtesy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that looking at Altenmann's talk page and the article it now appears that they created the article by copying it from a source. When in fact it was Designerx that added the copyrighted content almost 5 years after the article was created. Designerx even said in their edit summary they were copying the content from the IDSA website in their edit summary, "Big CHANGE. Added history article directly from IDSA site. Duh. Why didn't IDSA do this?". GB fan 10:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the script in TW is stupid, it just looks for the first edit. But I agree that the copyright infringement wasn't Altenmann's doing. I wonder if Sphilbrick should consider just restoring all the pre-infringing edits. Looking at it, there wasn't much to save and not sure if it passes WP:GNG by 2014 standards. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I missed that there may have been a non-problematic version originally. I see that the problem tracks back to 2009, with the edit summary Big CHANGE. Added history article directly from IDSA site. Duh. Why didn't IDSA do this?. As Dennis notes, I can restore it to the pre-2009 version, although there's not much there, and it isn't sourced. While not a BLP, so no automatic requirement for sources, I doubt it would pass an AfD. It would be nice if someone wanted to start over and create at least a passable stub. Is that someone you are interested in doing? If not, seems like a waste of time to restore, then propose for deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry GBFan, I see you already made that point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Why wouldn't the content require sources? bobrayner (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-BLP articles don't require sources, per WP:V, which states that facts must be verifiable, not verified. There is no policy requirement for sources in an articles except BLPs, although most will end up at AFD and either get sourced or deleted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be the best page for a philosphical debate, but WP:V doesn't distinguish between "verifiable" and "verified" in that way. The policy says: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." WP:V does not say that there's some intermediate state of verifiable-but-not-verified which doesn't actually require a reliable source to be present in the article. bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From a technical point, it seems to. Material must simply be able to be verified, but it doesn't require that all fact are proven before being added. Hence the tenses of verif* are chosen carefully. Once challenged, material must be verified or removed. Wikipedia has never had a policy that requires an article to be sourced to exist, only that such verification is possible, ie: it is a fact and not original research or WP:synth. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the "this article has no sources" tags. It is expected that others will come in and fill out more material, add more sources, etc. But in the end, articles without sources aren't optimal, but they are allowed under policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kbrose has created a new stub for it (and quite rightly too), and I've added some independent sources. The article had nearly 100 incoming links and in my view would pass an AfD with the current references. Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

• Thank you everyone for stalking and taking up this discussion on my behalf. I certainly had not realised that the semantics of verified vs verifiable somewhat conflict both in different policy and/or guideline pages and in the way they are interpreted by us. I will certainly bear all this in mind in the future. I am sure there are plenty of articles that have been created as short articles or stubs by the original author in good faith but which over the course of time have come to include copvios and other irrelevant and/or disallowed content added by others. Thanks again for an interesting conversation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for sloppy posting the question @User:Kudpung. i vaguely remember there is a guideline (and common sense) that when handling a copyvio one must check the history first and instead of deleting, one is supposed to restore last known good version. i hope in the future it (rush deletion) will happen less often. -No.Altenmann >t 15:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kingsley.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kingsley.jpg has been replaced by another image, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no one is making any personal attacks on admins if anything there making personal attacks on me , this is a very funny site and now Im beginning to see why people do not believe everything thats on this site , let me just state some facts for you quickly due to the fact that you say you agree with roovet being ok for speedy deletion , after talking to a few admins last night on live chat . maybe you can tell me how you are saying roovet is showing no importance and yet this is MetaCrawler , Harvester42, WebCrawler and SideStep please tell me where are there reliable References a few of them have none at all yet the pages are still on wikipedia no one has nothing to say about them no one is even talking about it , the reason I'm using just these as examples are the fact the roovet was labeled as a Metasearch engine . along with these. so maybe you can tell me what makes these search engines more important then roovet , roovet has more reliable References then all of theses also , the newest article was written more detailed then the last few. The thing that get me is you say hey we will give you time to fix some things but you do not give no one time to fix anything . you do not tell the writer who is writting the article whats wrong with it soo he can fix it . you just hit the delete button . the reason I no you guys are 100% wrong is the fact that you still can not tell me why the articles I mentioned above have not be deleted . you say wikipedia is all about facts when those articles state no facts or reliable References.

you should check the last roovet article that was recently deleted and tell me that it was not more detailed then the articles i mentioned above or at leaset have better References then them . I must say you guys are funny !!!!!--Thewolf12 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are quite a few things you do not understand about Wikipedia, such as for example the use of talk pages (I have added a title to this thread). I had already reviewed the deleted material and I consider the deletion to be appropriate. Comparing Roovet with other articles is not a justifiable argument, it comes under WP:OTHERSTUFF which I encourage you to read. There are over 4 million articles in the English Wikipedia and it is impossible for the 100 or so active admins to check them all, so some slip through the net. For the relevant deletion criteria please see WP:DELETION which has already been explained to you. If you still disagree with the deletion, your next course of action would be at Wikipedia:Deletion review. You have some reading to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]