Jump to content

User talk:Kvng/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Please stop

It's unfortunate to see your work in DEPRODing has ultimately made the process of proposing articles of deletion nearly useless. Stalking the PROD list and looking for articles which are in their final hours of existence—articles which have not been edited in years—is not helpful.

Your contributions to Wedlease and its subsequent AfD were in no way helpful. They merely added on more gossip-news sites (see: The Daily Mail) wanting to briefly touch on an item that has never existed. The term is ridiculous. It isn't real. You sir are ridiculous for DEPRODing this article, "adding additional sources" (no one needs to place 8 citations on a single line; that was absolutely ridiculous), and arguing for the keep of this article in its AfD.

As so many before me have asked you: please stop "patrolling" the PROD articles. Please just stop so that the process can work smoothly. CawheeTalk 18:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cawhee: there needs to be checks and balances on prod. WP:PRODPATROL exists for a reason. Do you suspect that my contributions to Wedlease and its AfD were not in good faith? I was not the only editor arguing for Keep. Fine to disagree but it is not productive or kind to call me or my edits ridiculous. ~Kvng (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Kvng, while I have to mostly side with the critics here, I want to say that I realize that you think what you doing is good for this project. And sometimes you may be right. I sincerely hope we can resolve this without too much stress for anyone. In the meantime, I'd invite you to read my thoughts on this, which explain why I am prodding many articles (that in turn you deprod): Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I have read your piece and I don't disagree that there are a lot of articles that don't meet guidelines and should be dealt with. I do a fair amount of tagging, prodding, merging and redirecting myself. I think the difference is that I don't see an urgency to this. Most of this material is orphaned and so is unlikely to be seen by readers. With reduced editor participation, development of Wikipedia articles happens relatively slowly these days. Deletions should also happen slowly. Most of what I'm doing as a WP:PRODPATROLler is enforcing policy that prod should not be use for potentially controversial deletion and that WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD should be given due consideration. ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

ExpoMarketing

Hi there,

Saw you deprodded ExpoMarketing. You're under no obligation to add those sources to the articles, of course, but could you point me to them? Looks like it fails WP:ORG to me, but I'd rather not waste time at AfD if I'm missing something. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My deprod was based on cited sources and your own claim that there are, "Plenty of ghits". I do not consider a prod that requires evaluation of the reliability of potentially marginal sources to be uncontroversial. If you chose to take this to WP:AFD, I will participate in the discussion and try to identify additional reliable sources if necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExpoMarketing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please allow others to improve Cobranet

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, , especially in light of the discussions including the article reassessment. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

We're working on a consensus at Talk:CobraNet#Cleanup_templates. I did not remove the templates, I was just reverting your effort to restore them without adequate discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


A good dePROD

I just dropped by to comment that after you dePRODded Gooey I looked at it more carefully and have now found several sources for it. It's just a shame that the multiple editors who've edited it in the past didn't bother with references, except for one source which they then copyvio'd! Hopefully it's now a nice little stub which might even get expanded. I got that one wrong in PRODding, I agree. PamD 10:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@PamD: Thanks for improving the article! ~Kvng (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop 2

You basically hound everyone and I would appreciate if you stopped. You drive by and remove everyone's PROD. Simply because you disagree with my PRODs is not Wikipedia-policy based. Please distance yourself, SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur. It's a problem. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 04:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
This is also a problem. ~Kvng (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Not as serious as you simply removing everyone's PRODs within minutes, what I'm saying is to stay the hell away from please. SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a problem with me reverting what I consider flawed work. It is simply WP:BRD. No need to get hostile. ~Kvng (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I must admit that I think you are becoming a problem too, and would ask that you stop. JMHamo (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
What specifically are you asking me to stop? ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It is a problem if you are WP:HOUNDING specific individuals and deprodding everything of theirs. There is no issue with deprodding if you have an actual contention or dispute on pages but to do it as a harassment tactic when the ANI discussion showed no consensus of wrong-doing against said person is problematic. It would be just as frustrating as if someone else were to follow every page you worked on and prodded them and pointed out these various concerns when neither one has actually resulted in anything. As noted below, I also have concerns on whether you are legitimately deprodding these articles or trying to make some WP:POINT against the prod process. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I deprodded a batch of SwisterTwister's prods because there was a batch of bad work there. I was not trying to make a point or piss off anyone, I was trying to get the prod backlog under control as efficiently as possible.
Please read and weigh at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_criticisms if you have a productive suggestion about my WP:PRODPATROLling. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solutions for Dreamers, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Sorry but you had no right to remove @MSJapan:'s comments from this Afd as you did here. You'd best use strikethrough for any comments you wish to retract, but never remove another editor's comments without their express consent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shawn in Montreal: I'm pretty sure MSJapan's comment was asking me to remove my comment so I went ahead and removed both of them. A strikeout would only increase attention on the mistake MSJapan asked me to correct. Just removing my comment would be confusing to other participants. I'm happy to restore the whole lot or whatever. ~Kvng (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Team H2politO deprodding

Why did you did deprod Team H2politO? Your statement that it was "controversial deletion on talk page" makes no sense. The last remark notes a COI on that page and otherwise there are comments from another user six years ago. Was the fact that someone else six years ago said they would be looking for sources enough for you to consider this a controversial proposed deletion? Either way, this is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team H2politO now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the lame edit comment. There has been significant work put into this article by multiple editors over many years, it has sources, some of them dead links. There was a COI issue but those contributions were mass reverted. I don't think it is the kind of article that you quietly delete without discussion. What's the problem using AFD for these more complicated cases. ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Well it wasn't particularly complicated in the end. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
No, thanks for your patience. ~Kvng (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Malayan Hymn

I saw that you had deprodded it and not given any explanation at the time, hence I sent it to AfD. I would be glad if you can provide independent reliable secondary third citations for Malayan Hymn. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My deprod was not about notability. I do not believe this is independently notable. I believe it could be merged into an existing article which is something that may not have been given consideration WP:BEFORE it was nominated for deletion. Sorry for not initially providing a deprod reason. I have rectified that. ~Kvng (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

For civility in the face of adversity


 The Civility Barnstar
For your civility and work towards dispute resolution Mr rnddude (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


Hello there, I only just noticed a couple of your edits on the AN/I page where PROD (and your participation in the process) is being discussed. I didn't want to make a fuss about it there so I'll do it here. I for one appreciate the lengths to which you are going to improve how the PROD process works where you are involved. For me, as I have repeated, the key issue is providing a reason for PROD and DePROD. Critically I think some of the "requests" you're addressing ought to be considered for policy but that's not really the issue here. Thank you for being so cooperative in the discussions and remaining civil and involved in the discourse. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:MSJapan

I seem to have driven him off the project by suggesting he pushed things too far with you. On the one hand, I feel bad about him leaving, but on the other hand, he clearly was pushing things too far. pbp 20:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully MSJapan is just cooling off. ~Kvng (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Did you see what MSJapan posted in your ANI thread? He's trying to make out like he's the victim. pbp 02:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
A bit too much drama for my taste. Probably time for me to take a break too. ~Kvng (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You shouldn't feel compelled to, just because MSJapan bullied you with that ridiculous ANI thread that went on and on where he said the same thing five or six times. pbp 02:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it is not because of MSJapan. It is because I prefer improving the encyclopedia and don't enjoy getting sucked into the drama. Taking a break should get me out of it. ~Kvng (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

how rude, deleting my edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States by date of death, it was not unhelpful in re-emphasising the irrelevance of such an article.

Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess talk page etiquette is a bit more stringent at AfD than on articles where disruptive comments are more routinely deleted. I've not had this problem before but I've been corrected on this twice today and going forward I will certainly try to be more respectful of other's comments at AfD. Thanks for the kitten. ~Kvng (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
no probs; i like kittens. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Open Shortest Path First, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subnet. 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) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Dangwana

It's not improved, it's almost nothing. Let's create pages, not names.Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I added country and coordinates and removed uncited information. How are these not improvements? I assume you want this deleted but recognized human settlements (i.e. on a map) are generally considered notable. ~Kvng (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Song redirects

Someone suggested that I talk to you about this XfD and some 37 others. I'm not sure if it's so you can chastise me, so you can commiserate with me, offer me advice or something else. Feel free to ping me with your thoughts. There's also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 20 about the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been routinely redirecting prodded non-notable songs to their (presumably) notable album if such an article exists. I don't think it is a good use of our time to spend community time reviewing or discussing deletion of items like this. Best to use WP:BRD for this. ~Kvng (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Giraffe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Giraffe. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Colorado Wiknic rescheduled to August 7

See details at Wikipedia:Meetup/Colorado/Wiknic/2016, the June date has been postponed.--Pharos (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Linear number for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Linear number 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/Linear number until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Combining of orphan categories

Hi Kvng.

FYI I did not combine the oldest and biggest orphan months' text because (hopefully soon !) they might be different again. We can always separate again when the time comes though.

Cheers.

Eno Lirpa (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

NMUSIC

Since you've already voted on David Tucker, I'm not going to clutter the AfD, but you may want to consider that you are reading policies far too technically. Wikipedia is not a technical paper, and I'm using that analogy on purpose. You are constantly homing in on details, and then if that detail is met, then you're allowing that the overall guideline is met. That is not the case, because policies are not self-contained, and they work in multiple ways simultaneously. I'll be coming back to "muliple" later.

The idea of NMUSIC is not to say "one is enough." What it does is offer alternatives for musicians who may not have GNG coverage otherwise, and prevent unsigned local artists with independent releases who really aren't notable from getting WP articles because of local press alone. So it works in two differnt directions at once.

For example, GNG says "coverage independent of the subject." Well, most music magazines interview the bands, so there's a case that none of that coverage is independent. That's why we allow for reviews of albums, because that's independent. We also allow for awards, and independent charts, because those establish the musician.

However, the local indie rag is not RS, so we don't use that as coverage. We also don't use vendor charts because they're biased to the vendor. We also have a lower limit for what's considered a notable release (or number of releases). So not meeting certain criteria is just as important as meeting other criteria.

GNG states "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources." Do you realize that you consistently interpret multiple as "two"? I can see why, as "multiple" means "more than one", but it doesn't necessarily mean "two", does it? If I have "multiple patents", or have earned "multiple awards", or published "multiple best-selling novels", or even that I have "multiple fingers", does that insinuate that I only have two of each of those, or is it possible that I have more than two? In short, if it meant "two" it would say "two" (or "at least two"), and it doesn't. So your interpretation of "multiple" is constraining the argument improperly, and then you're telling other people they're wrong because of that, when you are the one making the error.

Similarly, "reliable sources" has to be taken in conjunction with WP:NOTNEWS, not read as "this person appeared in two local news sources so they're notable." Yet you homed right in on the detail in NMUSIC that said "the subject may meet at least one of 12 guidelines", decided that two local sources met GNG, and therefore, as the artist barely met one criterion, you then ignored the fact that he failed the other 11 by a country mile and voted keep.

You've done the same thing with WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Yeah, it says it's got an antenna of X wattage and a callsign/license, but there's no reliable sources that show it exists with that antenna wattage and callsign. Why should we have an article on a nonexistent item? I mean, I could say I've got a 10 million watt antenna and whatever callsign I wanted, right, and I could clearly create an article that said that, right? If I can't prove it, though, I'm not a radio operator, I'm just a liar/hoax article creator. So again, you can't home in on a detail, and then state that because that detail is met, the policy is satisfied.

Let me put it another way: I send you a paper for review. It has to meet certain criteria. I fail to meet all of them except one, that one being that I formatted the paper correctly. I didn't spell anything correctly, the writing is atrocious to the point where you can't tell what I actually did, my data presentation is unintelligible because I didn't put units on it, my experiment was flawed, and my conclusion is therefore grossly incorrect. Are you going to pass that paper on as approved for publication because I met only one of the criteria? I wouldn't think so, and maybe that's the attitude you need to take here; which is that maybe "one isn't enough after all." MSJapan (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If you think the policy is lame, propose changes to policy. Asking people to ignore or bend the policy in the name of "good judgement" will just lead to further unproductive conflict. ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the policy; you're the one misreading it. Everyone else assumes an article needs to definitely meet a few of the criteria, not just barely scrape by on one with a tremendously liberal interpretation that GNG = "two sources as long as their name is mentioned." This is my point - you simply don't understand how to apply policy, and then you use spurious keep reasons rather than admit you are wrong. Two local sources do not meet GNG, never have, and never will. You'd just rather ignore the arguments you can't win and just expect to be left alone to deprod at will. I still maintain that competence is required, and you haven't got it. MSJapan (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This is getting very specific to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tucker (singer). Repost there and I will be happy to respond in due course. ~Kvng (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Lourdes Gray Wolves

Hello -

The relevant information from the Lourdes Gray Wolves has been merged with the Lourdes University page. Could you delete the Gray Wolves page?

Thanks- Webmasterlourdes (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You can do that yourself by blanking Lourdes Gray Wolves and WP:REDIRECTing to Lourdes University. I don't actually see any new material in Lourdes University though. ~Kvng (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for keeping a deprod log. I appreciate that you appreciate transparency in the face of criticism. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Transparency plus it helps me to assess and therefore improve my work. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oneiromancy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Platonic. 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) 10:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your ongoing work to improve Wikipedia in all of the various areas you focus upon. North America1000 07:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

One last time

Stay away from me , that means anything including DePRODing. You repeatedly violate time after time. SwisterTwister talk 15:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bother you. You're a prolific prodder and I am a prod patroller; It's nothing personal. I will stop posting explanations of my work on your talk page as that appears to be your desire. ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Video, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electronic. 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) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Backlog

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

  • 13 July 2016: 7,000
  • 1 August 2016: 9,000
  • 7 August 2016: 10,472
  • 16 August 2016: 11,500
  • 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

LAN vs WAN

I've put a bit of explanation now in Talk:Local area network Snori (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:SwisterTwister. Thank you. North America1000 06:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert at decibel

I reverted your edit, though parts of it were good, when I saw the large number of changes of level to amplitude. Please understand that level (logarithmic quantity) has a specific technical meaning before replacing it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll give it another shot in a few days. I'd appreciate any help you can offer. The power vs. level details are confusing enough. Inconsistent terminology is making it worse. ~Kvng (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. And it was news to me a few years ago that "level" had been defined thus by the standards groups. But it has been; so level difference correspond to power ratios and also to amplitude ratios. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

GUI-Tester and deprod

Thanks for looking it over. Did you use a tool or template to leave the deprod message at Talk:GUI-Tester? Are you interested in working on this article further? --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I do those messages with templates and manual C-P. GUI-Tester is on my watchlist now and so I will probably do some work on it if it gets itself in front of me. ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
What template did you use? That's the type of thing that I think should be recommended as part of the prod/deprod process.
Since GUI-Tester has no independent sources and is a part of a larger methodology, I am inclined to redirect and merge it to Ergolight, which I've deprod'd. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think {{old prod full}} is what you're looking for. Let's discuss the testing tools on the respective article talk pages. I've added Ergolight to my watchlist. ~Kvng (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
{{old prod full}} Doh! Right in front of my face the whole time. Thanks!
There's a rather large amount of COI editing going on with these articles. I've been focusing on that. I don't even have the scope of it identified yet: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Avi_Harel. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Painted Dragon

Appears to be a hoax - check the refs, the awards they refer to were for the previous book, and publication date is "Feb 2017", again unsourced - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

forget that, I'm clearly being thick today. It's the forthcoming new volume. Though the refs are fake - David Gerard (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

St Joseph's degree college

I'd tend to agree but WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states " Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." The school's website is a primary source and therefore requires a collaborating reliable source to be provided. Dan arndt (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be cited, they just have to exist. Have you tried to find any sources? ~Kvng (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Diesel engine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Simplification removes explaination for "2".

Simplification removes explaination for "2". No, the next sentence explains the reason for the two, that it is rounded. It doesn't need two explanations for the rounding. Gah4 (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transmitter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna. 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) 09:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Ultraman Belial

I have a good reason actually. Once that page existed, I shall remove and redirect (the "Main Article" template) the content from List of Ultra Galaxy Mega Monster Battle characters. For now, while it's still a draft, Belial needs an info so using the list page may be helpful for a moment before gaining its own independent page. So what shall I do now?

Zero stylinx (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can be of further assistance. If you are convinced that this topic meets the notability requirements to be a stand-alone article, you can either resubmit to AfD or you can move it yourself to main article space and risk having it deleted. The Japanese sources cited in your draft are permitted but since I don't speak Japanese, I am not qualified to evaluate them and thus can't give you any more detailed advice than this. You may wish to seek further assistance at the AfC help desk. ~Kvng (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ruger Mini-14

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ruger Mini-14. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

NPP - Last call for work group comments on stage 1

Hi Kvng,

The future of NPP and AfC:

To take full advantage of the WMF developer time that has been allocated to this project, we must now quickly submit the short list of our priorities before the end of October, otherwise we may lose the attention of the WMF.
If you have not already done so, please visit the page at Suggested Improvements and select your personal choice of 10 features (excluding the ones the devs are already doing) and list them in your order of priority at Priorities.

Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed your edit at Network packet to replace an RFC external link with a magic link: diff. FYI it is very likely that magic links for ISBN + PMID + RFC will be disabled in the not distant future. The rational is that explicit markup to indicate that something special will occur (an external link) is better and more predictable for editors and software. I haven't examined the details since it was first announced so I don't know the current state, but thought you might like the background.

Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on this. It doesn't look like existing magic links will disappear. They may be implemented differently and so I will start using {{IETF-RFC}} when I want a magic link. ~Kvng (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

International Overdose Awareness Day page has been deleted

Hi, I am a little curious as to why a page approved by you from the draft space has now been deleted. International Overdose Awareness Day is a day that is observed around the world. While the area of drugs is a contentious one I am surprised that a page, having qualified, is then deleted so quickly from wikipedia.(103.253.92.96 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

It was apparently deleted due primarily due to copyright violation. It apparently included material from http://www.overdoseday.com/about-us/aims/ ~Kvng (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is there a way to retrieve the entry in order for re-submission with the alleged copyright violation addressed? 103.253.92.96 (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I would contact DGG who is the administrator who performed the deletion. Sorry that I missed that in my review of the submission. ~Kvng (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ONVIF

Hello. I have several outstanding changes proposed on ONVIF's wiki. You approved a couple, and I want to know if you could approve these others below. ONVIF is a non-profit member consortium and I work with/for ONVIF. All of the changes are factual.

1. Requested changes[edit source] An edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. More changes in introduction: It was officially incorporated as a non-profit, 501(c)6 Delaware corporation on November 25, 2008. ONVIF membership is open to manufacturers, software developers, consultants, system integrators, end users and other interest groups that wish to participate in the activities of ONVIF. The ONVIF specification aims to achieve interoperability between network physical security products regardless of manufacturer. Thanks.

CatatONVIF (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


2. Requested changes[edit source] An edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. Profiles - proposed edits in bold Building on ONVIF Specifications, ONVIF Profiles are technical specifications that ensure the interoperability of specific features between conformant clients and conformant devices. Profile S - Addresses common functionalities of IP video systems, such as video and audio streaming, PTZ controls, and relay activation.[8] Profile C - Addresses common functionalities of IP access control systems, such as door state and control, credential management, and event handling.[9] Profile G - Addresses video storage, recording, search, and retrieval.[10] Profile Q - Addresses device discovery and configuration, as well as the management of TLS certificates.[1] Profile A (Release Candidate) - Establishes an interface for access control clients and expands the configuration options for ONVIF conformant access control systems. Thanks. CatatONVIF (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

3. Requested changes[edit source] An edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. Members section: ONVIF offers four levels of membership: user, contributing, observer and full member, to accommodate individual choices of participation. Full or contributing members can actively influence the development of the standard by participating in the work of the forum. The user member level is open to organizations that wish to use the network interface specification and have access to specification proposals but do not want to participate in any work of the forum. The observer member level is open for organizations who do not want to participate in any work of the Forum, but who is granted certain limited benefits such as the right to access Network Interface Specification test tools. However, observer member may not present, claim, market or promote any hardware product or software application or other device to be qualified as a Compliant Network Product.[2] Technology and test tools are available to all ONVIF members to facilitate the development of conformant products. In December 2009, ONVIF’s member base had grown to 103 members. This comprised 12 full members, 13 contributing members and 78 user members.[2] In December 2010, the forum had more than 240 members and more than 440 conformant products on the market.[3] By January 2015, this had grown to more than 3,700 ONVIF conformant products and 500 members. By August 2016, this grew to more than 6,900 conformant products on the market with 461 members[3]. Thanks. CatatONVIF (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

CatatONVIF (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 02:04:33, 8 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by David.cascap

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cholangiocarcinoma_Screening_and_Care_Program_(CASCAP)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David.cascap#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Cholangiocarcinoma_Screening_and_Care_Program_.28CASCAP.29_.28November_8.29


Hi Kving,

I am not sure what you are requesting. I do have the suggested pages linked to the article on every instance of the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khon_Kaen_University, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholangiocarcinoma). What is it exactly that is needed. Dr. Narong Khuntikeo has dedicated his life to this project and is an amazing humanitarian, he has been wanting this Wikipedia page for 2 years and I have been the only one to step up and do it for him. I am having trouble understanding what it is exactly you need me to do because the two links you sent to consider adding are already added multiple times in the article. can you be more specific , please?


David.cascap (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There is not a good indication that CASCAP meets Wikipedia notability criteria. I suggest you use the material in this draft to improve the existing articles in the encyclopedia instead of trying to get this stand-alone article approved. ~Kvng (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Cynegtica (Nemsianus)

Dear Kvng

Thank you so much for taking the time to review and accept my draft article. Thanks also for setting up the links to it: saves me the trouble! CHRM2 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 04:50:29, 15 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by LRNXNFCY


Hello Kvng,

I am a little confused because I thought that I was making edits to the Biosafety page rather than trying to create a new page. I used the sandbox to make and track my edits and then submitted from there.

Do you have guidance on what I did incorrectly. I worked really hard on my edits and would like to share them so that people are better informed about the growing field of Biosafety.

Thank You,

~~

LRNXNFCY (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

See my response at User talk:LRNXNFCY#Your submission at Articles for creation: Biosafety (November 6) ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kvng. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Norepinephrine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norepinephrine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Kvng. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ddos.

Targeting isnt selective, its always random, but theres a ultimate amount if broadbanded. Who knew? The talk of genius, must say.

-V — Preceding unsigned comment added by VorTexNation (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Kvng: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Nomination of Solodev for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solodev 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/Solodev until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. – Joe (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Birds by location

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Birds by location. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass deprod?

Hi. You know I don't always agree with you, but this time I found an anon whom I think is prodding way too liberally; I just deprodded a bunch of articles he prodded that appeared at WP:POLAND Article Alerts. All but one seem unjustified (well, at lest I was able to find sources for most of them that suggest the buildings in question pass GNG). If you could take a look at 2604:2000:E016:A700:2034:8BC3:688C:4357 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC/Work group

As you are a member of the above task force we're just letting you know about an up coming election for two coordinators for the New Page Review System. Full details at New Page Review Coordinators

If you no longer wish to receive messages from this project, you may opt out here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. The coordinators will do their best for for the advancement of the improvement of NPP and AfC and generally keep tracks on the development of those things. Coordinators have no additional or special user benefits, but they will be 'go to' people and will try to keep discussions in the right places. This very much involves this project too, especially with growing renewed interest around the site about what WP:ACTRIAL was all about.

Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Discuss this message here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from this list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nintendo Switch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nintendo Switch. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kvng. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 23:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

graphics pipeline

Could you be a bit more elaborate on why you see missing sources here? Just because the article is not stuffed with inline references doesn't mean it isn't sourced. The individual steps in the process all have their own articles, by the way. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 07:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

And thanks for your assesment, btw. Suggestions for improvement welcome ;-) --PaterMcFly talk contribs 07:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:W56

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:W56. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Money.Net

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Money.Net. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Linebreaks formatting

Hi! I wouldn't bother with edits like these, the MediaWiki parser cleans all the tags in wikitext and turns both <br> or <br /> into <br /> on output. -- intgr [talk] 16:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but it confuses syntax highlighting in my wikicode editor. I'm not going to start a campaign or anything, just fix them up when it is especially bad and I am doing other work on an article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC/Work group

Hi Kvng,

In view of the huge and sudden backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed since mid 2016, the WMF has begun a dialogue in a quest to examine the situation and possible solutions. Please consider commenting there if you have not already done so. It is highly recommended to read it all before it becomes too long to follow. The project is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and its talk page.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kvng/Archive_6&oldid=1089576271"