Jump to content

User talk:Kvng

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Violarulez (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 21 June 2022 (→reverted edit on reverb: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

CD Audio

Hi. Thanks for your recent edits on many classical music-related articles! May I ask you why you replaced CD Audio with compact disc? I feel compact disc is less precise (after all, they weren't released as data discs). Ron Oliver (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ron Oliver CD audio redirects to Compact Disc Digital Audio which is a fairly technical article describing the format for storing audio on a compact disc. In the context where I made these changes, I think this level of technicality will confuse readers; a compact disc or CD is what people are what I think music buyers would most readily identify. Let me know if you disagree and I can help revert. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not such a big problem, but I always make a specific reference to whether it is a CD Audio, an Super Audio CD, or other types of formats. I agree that the CDDA article is rather technical, but it is the one that most accurately represents reality. I do not necessarily disagree with your explanation, and I won't ask for a mass revert, because the contributions were useful, but I guess I'll keep using the CDDA link on any new articles I may create. I just find it helpful. :) Ron Oliver (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June events from Women in Red

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:William Buchanan (locomotive designer) on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Education Station

Hey, Kvng,

I see a big red error message by your talk page comment, there might be a problem with the wikicode you used or maybe you need to just use a regular tilde signature. By the way, I look at a lot of PRODs every day and most times when they are de-PROD'd, the editor just leaves a comment in an edit summary and doesn't leave a talk page statement but do what you want to do! Lately, there have been dozens of PRODs on little-watched TV shows, from TV series on country channels to reality shows to music programs to game shows to sport shows. So, it looks like this article was part of that bunch we've had over the past two weeks. Take care, Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it looks like this error message is true for Talk:Enjoying Everyday Life, Talk:San Bernardino County Probation Department and Talk:Guatemalan Canadians too, but Talk:Honduran Canadians and Talk:Comedy Underground with Dave Attell notices look okay. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in articles that have been recently deleted by PROD, de-PROD'd or taken AFD, I know User:SDZeroBot maintains a list that goes at least one week back at User:SDZeroBot/PROD Watch/last week. If you are interested in further back, just go into the page history and look at the previous update. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I'm using {{subst:ISO date}} to help fill {{Old prod}} and something is going wrong with that recently and until I can be bothered to figure that out, things will be a little messy. Sorry.
Things seem to be out of balance again at PROD. I've posted some thoughts at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Imbalance and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Proposed_deletion_patrolling#Tools_arms_race.
I use User:SDZeroBot and didn't realize it had some history. The main problem is I can't determine whether deletion was appropriate if I can't view the deleted article. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using the deleted-metadata-link script. It's not the same thing as viewing deleted content but still ... – SD0001 (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nice thing about SDZeroBot's report is that it will show you the pages that were de-PROD'd and also those that were de-PROD'd and taken to AFD. Although TenPoundHammer isn't the only editor who tags dozens of articles with Proposed deletion tags, he has been an extremely active PRODder this spring and you can see some discussions about his levels of PROD activity at his talk page. I started a discussion about this subject way back in April here because there are only a couple of admins who regularly review PRODs and the volume of work was just too much for one or two admins to handle. The subject might have even gone to ANI, I'm not sure, but a lot of the deletion activity has been moved from PRODs to AFDs. One of the main complaints I saw is that instead of deletion, these pages should have been turned into redirects that pointed back to the TV networks the shows were part of. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

Is there a reason you're mass-deprodding everything? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer, I have not done any patrolling for over a year. I happen have some time on my hands for WP:PRODPATROL. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions and the stuff I'm DEPRODding is potentially controversial. Without WP:PRODPATROL activity, editors seem to forget this point so yeah, based on my exprience there's a lot in the PROD queue that shouldn't be. ETA: I am not deprodding everything and I am not exclusively targeting your PRODs. ~Kvng (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone whose PROD you removed just before it would've gone through, it would be nice if you'd at least try and help out w/ the articles you deprod. You took the PRD off of an article that was nothing but a 1,200 word plot summary w/ no proper sources. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Kvng but I've seen this response from other editors when they see the volume of PRODs at a higher level than they expect. Outside of recent surges, there are typically anywhere from 15 to 30 PRODs per day which can allow for careful review from editors who monitor PRODs. But when they notice a higher volume of PRODs in a surge, there seems to be the response to de-PROD and figure out what to do (improve the article, redirect the page, take it to AFD) later. You've seen this reaction before in recent months, TenPoundHammer. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username I've never felt an obligation to improve articles that others want to delete WP:NOTCLEANUP. Most of my Wikipedia work is improving articles where I have expertise. I have felt an obligation to provide a rationale for DEPRODding and I've even tried to help with transparency by keeping records. I have also made it a point in the past to participate in AfD discussions for articles I've DEPRODded. But. like @Liz said, there is a surge going on so I've streamlined my process. ~Kvng (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why there are articles w/ 15 year old maintenance tags. I imagine now the article in question will sit there gathering dust for another decade or so before someone tries to AfD it and the Nervous Nellies say, "Oh, dear, no, you can't do that!" Perfect example: The Virgin Queen of St. Francis High is on it's third AfD and people are still voting "keep." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK so maybe we should spend more time improving articles and less time fighting about deleting them. ~Kvng (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:54:36, 13 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonathan M Wheeler


Thank you for volunteering your time to review this submission.

I have worked with several historians, librarians, and alumni to collect as much information as I can. I was hoping that the 1946 Stanford University masters thesis would qualify as significant independent coverage of the school, and that the other newspapert articles (e.g., the 1971 Palo Alto Times article that discusses the fire that destroyed the school-owned gymnasium and auditorium) would also count as independent significant coverage.

How many independent sources would you consider to be the minimum number to satisfy the standards for this article? If it's 4, I believe I have 3, and would have to spend only a few more hours searching for something else... Perhaps you can give me recommendations for where to look. Are modern newspaper articles about the school's sports program the type of citations that you're after?

Jonathan M Wheeler (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan M Wheeler we like to review WP:THREE but the actual requirement is multiple so two will do in a pinch. In my recent review, trusting the work of previous reviewers, I only evaluated the sources you added since the previous review. If you would like to identify, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject, I can have another look. ~Kvng (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RTH

Could you please stop leaving comments on articles about your review status? They have nothing to do with the article itself. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Hidden_text#Inappropriate_uses_for_hidden_text Uwsi (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwsi, which of those bullet points do you feel I'm infringing with my bookmarks? These are not permanent. I have them in place in less than 100 articles at a time and remove them when I have finished a review. ~Kvng (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<!-- Jimmy was here. --> Uwsi (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Computer security, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secure operating system.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kvng,


Thank you for correcting my misguided edit on the TR-707 page, where I removed the bold text formatting of 'TR-727'. Being a novice editor, I was unaware that there was a reason for that text being in bold. I'm glad you brought this to my attention, and will be more diligent in the future.


Kind regards,

Emily Banks (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Emily Banks! Yeah, we have rules for everything. This one is MOS:BOLD. Don't worry too much about it; Making mistakes is a legit way to learn. ~Kvng (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Lokayukta

Hi Kvng. Hope you are keeping well. Thanks for approving this article. Have a nice day. Gardenkur (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In-article comment signing

Hello. Why are you adding comments with links to your user page?--TZubiri (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TZubiri see User:Kvng/RTH for the explaination ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, I missed the userspace article. Looks like a good idea! TZubiri (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Institute for Advanced Study at University of Minnesota for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Advanced Study at University of Minnesota is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Advanced Study at University of Minnesota until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ElKevbo (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reverted edit on reverb

Hey, sorry to bother you, but can you look more closely when reverting edits? Why is there a separate heading for convolution reverb, but convolution reverb is also described under digital reverbs in the article? That one photo on the left makes the page look messy, but if that was the issue for you, you can just specifically change that rather than reverting the edit. Thanks in advance, and have a nice day. --Violarulez (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kvng&oldid=1094325880"