Jump to content

User talk:KSFT

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KSFT (talk | contribs) at 18:28, 1 January 2018 (→‎Skegness Pier copy vio: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Regarding Article Draft:Arjun_Mishra

Respected Sir,

Please have a look again and let me know if I fixed all issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arjun_Mishra

Thanks,

Mandeep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandeepkr (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:KSFT|<font color="aa8866" style="font-family:serif"><b>KSFT</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:KSFT|t]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/KSFT|c]])</sup> → KSFT (t|c)

to

[[User:KSFT|<span style="color: #aa8866; font-family: serif;"><b>KSFT</b></span>]] <sup>([[User talk:KSFT|t]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/KSFT|c]])</sup> → KSFT (t|c)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, KSFT. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello KSFT, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello KSFT, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Reliable citations

Hi KSFT, thanks for reviewing my article s-finite measure. I have one question: what kind of additional references do you think should be in the article? Because the definition and the properties are backed by a up to date book and/or proofs that show the claimed properties. Cheers --NikelsenH (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NikelsenH: In general, articles should be supported by more than one source, both for verifiability and to show that the subjects are notable. It would be great if you could find another source or two, maybe other textbooks or papers that describe s-finite measures. KSFT (t|c) 15:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks --NikelsenH (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skegness Pier copy vio

Hi, I see you have made a note that content I today copied from Skegness to Skegness Pier has at some point been directly copied from elsewhere. Admittedly, I hadn't got as far as to check and rewrite/restructure the remainder of the article, and if this is the case, then would previous revisions of Skegness not be affected too? Would there need to be a mass deletion of historic revisions there? Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: After looking more closely, I noticed that the news article is dated 13 May 2017, years after the text was first put on Wikipedia. I think the copyvio is theirs, and we don't need to revdel. KSFT (t|c) 18:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's always the thing really - who wrote it first. I appreciate, given I copied the text today into a new article, that without knowing where it came from, it seemed like it may have been copied from that source, however as you note, the initial text from the Skegness article pre-dates it. Perhaps if you'd have left a note on my talk page about your concern, I could have clarified what I had done and it could have been resolved that way :) In saying that, I won't necessarily re-add as was, as i'll look to find more concrete sources for the type of info that was there, as should have been the case on the original article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps I should have done that. Now that it's clear that the text isn't a copyvio, I don't see a problem with adding at again, as long as it's attributed correctly to the editor who added it to Skegness. KSFT (t|c) 18:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KSFT&oldid=818120407"