User talk:Kvng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Universal card[edit]

Hello Kvng. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Universal card".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Universal card}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Network Time Protocol and Network Time Foundation[edit]

I don't believe NTF is notable yet. Glrx (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 21:10:24, 12 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by TheatreJa9[edit]

I've been going through the various guidelines for reliable sources and I've come to the conclusion that my sources may be hard to verify due to them being primarily print from community papers. If I'm unable to find more reliable sources that can be verified I'm assuming my article for not only Globus Theatre but also Sarah Quick won't be accepted, am I correct? These two articles I've been working on are for a non-profit theatre that's operated for 11 years, and a fairly well known playwright. Any suggestions on ferreting out better source information to cite?

TheatreJa9 (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Local sources are fine for verification but they're generally not adequate for establishing notability of organizations. Your submission will not be accepted until we can demonstrate notability of the subject. ~KvnG 23:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comparison of audio network protocols, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livewire. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Date format in Linux articles[edit]

Hello! Any chances, please, for you to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software § Date format in release history sections of Linux articles and possibly comment there by providing your point of view? The whole thing is pretty much poorly discussed with only a few editors actually discussing it, while it seems to be affecting more than a few articles (and the date format seems to be extending beyond the tables into references, please see history of the Linux distribution article). Any contributions to the discussion would be highly appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Kvng. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Complete Convenient has been accepted[edit]

Complete Convenient, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~KvnG 19:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

08:24:49, 21 November 2014 review of submission by Theren.moodley[edit]

My article 'Ligentia Group Limited'was declined because of notability issues and an issue with 3rd party references. I find this a little confusing as not only are there a considerable amount of references but the majority of them are from independent sources (the times newspaper, virgin etc). In addition, compare to similar pages on wikipedia by similar companies Ligentia's references are extensive: (1 independent external reference) (2 independent external references)

It seems to me that there is one standard for my page and another for other similar sized enterprises, which is disappointing as I believe this is not what wikipedia stands for.

Theren.moodley (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're disappointed. I will have a another look at this when I get a chance. With regards to the other Wikipedia content you're comparing to, I suggest you have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. You're welcome to resubmit to get an opinion from another reviewer. You also have the option to move your draft to mainspace and take your chances with having it deleted. ~KvnG 15:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dental amalgam toxicity[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dental amalgam toxicity. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Portal assignment for new article[edit]

I was thrilled to see my first original article in mainspace. However, I'm a little puzzled because the article is about a research area in cross-cultural psychology, and I expected it to be in the psychology portal. Instead, it's in the China and Sociology portals. How do I get it listed in the Psychology portal? (I've started a Category for "Cross-cultural psychology in the Psychology portal.)

The article is currently C-class. Besides adding more material from articles (which you kindly provided), how can I improve it? And how technical should I get? I have two masters degrees in psych and I'm used to writing in APA journal format, which would be a bit like classical Greek to the average reader.

Thanks again for reviewing the article. I now feel confident enough to write articles independently. Shandong44 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

To change which Wikiproject(s) the article belongs to, simply edit the article's talk page. I have added {{WikiProject Psychology}} yo can remove the others if you don't believe they apply.
I think what you have up there right now is about as technical as you want to get. Don't be surprised or offended if other editors come by and want to make their own improvements the article - now that it is in mainspace, that's what's supposed to happen.
The sources I put on the talk page are WP:SECONDARY. We prefer these over WP:PRIMARY at Wikipedia because they usually contain more accessible material with better perspective on the topic. If you introduce more material from secondary sources, you will naturally move the article to where it needs to be.
Congratulations on your degrees. Please be aware that, unlike journal articles, we don't like to see WP:ORIGINAL research in Wikipedia articles. ~KvnG 15:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Element[edit]


Thank you for your review of the Ernest Element article, I have now got to the point where I cannot be bothered to continue trying to get this article submitted, Ernest played weekly on the BBC radio and toured the world with some of the great musicians including playing for edward elgar, there are already four wikipedia articles that mention him:

Due to newspapers still updating their previous issues online I am unable to source his obituary online although he is mentioned in others such as:

And continued entries from the BBC Genome project being added (

Is it easier just to delete this article, this has gone from trying to add some value to being a chore.

OK. If you're done, rather than abandoning it and having it deleted for sure, I think we should move the article as it is to mainspace and see if it survives. ~KvnG 14:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 14:51:45, 26 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Awesomelisa[edit]

I'd like more information on why my article was rejected (it seems it has been deleted so I cannot see the reviewers comments). I would also like the opportunity to amend the article so it meets Wikipedia's requirements. I've seen today my article has been rejected due to copyright issues. I can't seem to see any comments on the draft page -- which has been deleted. I don't believe I violated copyright, I put sources whenever I used material that was not written by myself. I would like to know more about this, and would also like the opportunity to amend the article and resubmit it. I see one comment there has been copyright infringement (it references an article that I referenced in the wikipedia entry -- I don't see how it can be copyright infringement if it is cited?

Please let me know. I'm keen to begin contributing more to Wikipedia and would like to use this as a learning experience to ensure future submissions conform to the Wikipedia community's guidelines. Thank you very much.

Awesomelisa (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Awesomelisa (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:COPYVIO. In brief, although there are limited exceptions, you can't copy stuff to Wikipedia without permission. An easy way to start contributing to Wikipedia is to improve existing articles. ~KvnG 15:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to see what specific violation was made? Everything I copied from external sources was quoted and cited. The page seems to have already been deleted, otherwise I would review the submission to see if I could identify the problem. Please let me know, thanks!

Awesomelisa (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Awesomelisa (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Girls Not Brides: The Global Partnership to End Child Marriage? No WP:COPYVIO there. Looks like it still exists. The reviewer suggested editing Child marriage to include this material. ~KvnG 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)