User talk:Kvng: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301 Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Art+Feminism | Find Her Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements Celebrate Women – All content gender gap events, in every language Wikipedia, in March 2024 Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024 Feminism and Folklore 2024 Writing Contest Tip of the month: When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello Kvng, why was the 'Rakshabandhan... Rasal Apne Bhai Ki Dhal' page was redirected to Inspire Films? Recently, I copyedited and added many reliable sources, and now the topic of this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.? Thanks 2409:4071:249D:494C:0:0:2790:48A4 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Early glassmaking in the United States 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 19:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will like to upload my biography on Wikipedia --Kingsley chichi (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If my biography means autobiography please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY before proceeding. ~Kvng (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cookie stuffing 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 01:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm here to stop the misinformation on several pages, 80% of the population of North America are demanding disclosure on UAP that are seen all over the world by credible military pilots and civilian pilots, we are not fringe, we are the majority. So, we don't like the bull going on here on wikipedia and we will take back the truth. Got any advice for when I'm banned for posting the actual facts, like correcting George Knapp's birthday or where Lou Elizondo was born or the truth the Dr Puthoff a very important physicist responsible for many tools used by law enforcement to this day. I'm disgusted that there is no way to file a complaint that I could find, so my only recourse is to become an editor, certainly would not give money to this organization. My interest in UAP is absolutely climate change motivated, I believe the private companies involved are sitting on technology that could be a game changer for humanity and help us power our world in a greener way. So, people like me are here to stop the stupidity. --Lithamoonsong (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithamoonsong, the information presented on Wikipedia comes from reliable sources. If you can find such sources that support the corrections you want to make, go ahead and bring this up on the talk page of the article that you want to correct. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a report file in PDF form that I want to upload to a Wiki article in the References/External Links tab, but I don’t know the steps to do it. --Samoiamo (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samoiamo, it is always best to include a link to where the document was originally published. This is the case even if or especially if the document is behind a paywall. Uploading or linking to an unauthorized upload is a WP:CV issue. If the document is something you created yourself, please read WP:OR before proceeding further. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Can you tell me more about the significant coverage? The book you linked only mentions it on 3 pages. The preview shows the paragraph starting on the bottom of one page (366) with some more info on the next one (367), and the third page mention (478) is just one sentence in the appendix. The index confirms these 3 pages as the only mentions. The rest of the book search results aren't helpful either. I don't see how that would satisfy WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. Spagooder (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph or two in a couple of sources is enough to write a competent short article. ~Kvng (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it's anchored by significant sources. This was only one source and it was much closer to the example of trivial coverage than significant coverage. Spagooder (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. WP:AFD should be used for deletions that deserve discussion. The fact that I bothered to deprod and you bothered to post here indicates that discussion is deserved. I agree that what I found is alone not enough for me to !vote keep in an AfD but my search was quick and dirty and brings us half way towards WP:42 IMO. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't controversial. Before I PROD an article, I look into the feasibility of fixing it, and I recently did so on another page. I bothered to ask you because I was under the impression that you had found significant coverage that I missed but unfortunately that's not the case. If the article deserved a discussion, its original writers wouldn't have had to resort to primary sources and a bunch of references that fail verification, and it probably wouldn't have sat in that state for years. Spagooder (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We may be using different definitions for controversial. WP:PROD is a shortcut created for deletions where no significant discussion is expected. Some editors think noncontroversial means deletions they beleive are WP:LIKELY to prevail. The bar for PROD is higher than that. ~Kvng (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're using the same definition. I nominated with the thought that anyone applying similar scrutiny would come to a similar conclusion. Spagooder (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my AfD experience, its a stretch to assume other editors think the same as you. ~Kvng (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about thinking the same, it's about going through the process—they would've found the same info I did, or lack thereof. The AfD still hasn't received a single comment after a week, clearly not controversial. Spagooder (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MAC service data unit 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/MAC service data unit 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.

UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kvng, how do I send this article from my sandbox for review? --Reneumeh (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Utopes took care of that for you. The submission Draft:SPACEMAP Inc has been reviewed and was declined. Please make the requested improvements and resubmit. ~Kvng (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

How are you?

I just wrote a Wiki page that needs to go up by tomorrow if possible. I have posted it but it doesnt seem to be live. I have no experience with wikipedia so this might be very straight forward but i can't figure out how it becomes an acutal page. Hope you can help. thanks --Rubyhlovett (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubyhlovett, I assume you're referring to Draft:Judy Hegarty Lovett. That needs to be submitted and then reviewed before it becomes an article. A couple issues though: 1/ We need to see multiple reliable sources that demonstrate notability of the subject. You have included only one that potentially qualifies. 2/ Based on your username, it appears there may be a conflict of interest in play. Please read WP:COI. ~Kvng (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kvng, I saw your comments on the merging talk page and wondered if I could hear your opinion on a related matter.

Around a week ago a proposal was passed to merge Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates and Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions, among other reforms to the FGTC system. Basically both pages used to have slightly different functions, now the Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates will cover both.

Both pages have extensive archives so I'm wondering how you might approach this? Aza24 (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, wondering if you saw this, I'll wait another day or two before I try something for the merge, but won't pester you further. Aza24 (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24, we probably don't want to make any changes to the archive pages themselves. You can leave them as they are and add a notice or link at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates to explain the situation and help editors find the respective archives. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am currently proposing to delete the article, Aspose.Words, and it has come to my attention that you have objected to a previous attempt at deleting the article. I would just like to ask why, especially because there is every good reason to. Logically speaking and according to Wikipedia's policies, this article has no place in Wikipedia. Please respond within 7 days, or else the article may be deleted. Thank you.

Ztimes3 (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ztimes3, The article was proposed for deletion 30 minutes after creation. Then the article was improved by the author. I take this to mean that the author did not want the article to be deleted and therefor it is not the type of uncontested and uncontroversial deletion for which the WP:PROD process is intended. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the rationale you gave as it doesn't appear correct. I saw two sources, one of which I've removed as unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Newsweek (2013-present). But I guess it's done which means probably AfD if reliable sources actually discussing it rather than just mentioning it as the current source and the Newsweek one do. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Kvng pretty much objects to every PROD tag, even for articles with literally zero secondary sources. Then you take it to AfD and Kvng doesn't ever turn up to argue in favour of keeping the article. AusLondonder (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was my guess, nice to have it confirmed. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder, @Doug Weller, for myself ant others like you who may be interested, I track my DEPROD activity at User:Kvng/Deprod. I do track and monitor all resulting AfDs. I participate in AfD discussions if I have something useful to add to the conversation. Even if I don't participate, I am monitoring to adjust my DEPROD criteria. For example, if I see a WP:SNOW keep, I will be more careful about DEPRODDING similar cases going forward. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. But I don't see how your rationale for your deprod at the article in question was correct. One source not an rs, the other a trivial mention. Searching shows much the same thing plus some doubt that the place where Moses supposedly was is there or even if it existed. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not required to state or even have a rationale correct or incorrect to DEPROD. I do always provide a rationale. I am not always correct. If you think the article should be deleted, please WP:BEFORE and then open an AfD and we can all discuss it there. It is unnecessary extra work to discuss these on my talk page and then again at AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it improves the encyclopedia to contest a seven day old PROD, uncontested by all other editors, for a county-level government agency (Adams County Industrial Development Authority), sourced only to their own website for 15 years. That article is now left in that state unless I take the time to take to AfD. I don't see how that is a positive outcome? AusLondonder (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder see WP:ATD-R ~Kvng (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you in fact removed the PROD tag from around six or seven non-notable county-level government agencies. I don't believe redirects are necessary in these cases, particularly if the agencies are not mentioned at other articles. Some of these articles have had zero page views in more than a month. They are not plausible search terms. Of course, I recognise you're perfectly entitled to remove PRODs. But for articles with little chance of AfD survival I don't see the point. AusLondonder (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder, I beleive these can minimally survive AfD as redirects. I don't see the point in deleting something that is being used (however infrequently) by readers (see WP:CHEAP). I agree that no mention in the proposed target is an issue but that can be addressed by improving the target article to add a mention as an alternative to deleting. Improving the target and redirecting results in a better encyclopedia than the deletion option. ~Kvng (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mary Sue is not a reliable source, and continues to push this libelous, unfounded description of this comic artwork. --Kasscourse (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasscourse, The Mary Sue is listed as reliable but biased or opinionated so should be identified in the text and balanced with other sources. It appears that's how the material is handled in Thomas Woodruff (artist). ~Kvng (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing that proposed deletion. I didn't know how to go about that properly, or what backlash would ensue. (In the future, if I'm unsure, is there a place to go to inquire about such a thing?) I did a lot of work organizing the Actors section and half of the Actress section (thus far), with notes of notable firsts achievements, so that it's more than just a list of names. I'll get around to continuing that soon, as I planned to at least finish doing the actors completely. I noticed that the user who proposed deletion did make a slew of edits prior to the proposal in which (-##,###) massive amounts were removed. So it might be worth examining and restoring potentially. Just wanted to bring that to your attention as well, unless you already noticed. Anyway, if you'd like to work together on this or any other films/awards-related articles (those, + actors and singing shows, tbh, are usually my jam), happy to help in any way. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 06:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinemaniac86 thanks for your work on this. I do most of my article improvement work on technical articles so I doubt I'll be helping with List of European Academy Award winners and nominees. It looks like AmeriMike has legitimate concerns about the maintenance of this list, I just don't think that deletion is the best way to address those concerns and it certainly is not an uncontroversial solution. I'm curious why, having invested work in this list, did you not object to the deletion proposal? ~Kvng (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My memory was I had intended to do so but ended up prodding it after doing my WP:BEFORE (and forgetting about this as an option) search to confirm there were no sources of note. Skynxnex (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skynxnex, is there anything you can suggest we add to PROD somewhere to help remind editors of WP:ATD? ~Kvng (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question but I think this was just more an issue of me being needing to be more careful as I work through multiple things. Like I definitely would have voted redirect if it had come up at AFD. This may just be a me-thing but I think part of it is BLAR'ing is less reviewed, effectively, than a PROD (rightfully since PRODs are harder to reverse) but that means if someone wants feedback about redirecting an article it's actually a bigger process (starting a discussion on the article talk page) than PRODing an article. No proposed changes just thoughts. Skynxnex (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’m trying to find a solution after I’ve discovered that a Wiki page covering an air accident has the incorrect flight number in the title (Wiki: Royal Brunei Airlines Flight 238), when it should be ”Flight 839” according to the committee’s accident final report which was published and cited in the “References” page. Is there a way in which I could edit the title and correct it for it to read “839” instead of “238?” --Samoiamo (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 other sources in Royal Brunei Airlines Flight 238 indicate flight 238. The report does say 839. Do you know why there's a descrepancy? ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samoiamo, I just noticed you started a conversation at Talk:Royal_Brunei_Airlines_Flight_238#Article_Name_Change. I have copied my above reply there. Let's continue the conversation there. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as information, List of game engines has a list criteria that all entries must be WP:Notable. As such, the two redirects you've just blar'd will eventually end up at RfD as pointing to an article that does not reference or mention them. -- ferret (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret, good point. Saw your warning too late. Prods can't be reinstated. I will keep this in mind in the future. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethernet Exchange 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/Ethernet Exchange 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.

DefaultFree (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have redirected this to defunct radio stations in New York. I presume this is accidental as the station was based in North Carolina? AusLondonder (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected ~Kvng (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've removed a deletion proposition template from the First Premiership of Waldemar Pawlak article. The reason you've stated is actually legitimate in my opinion, however the topic is allready covered and the content that would suposedly be merged can allready be found in the First Premiership subsection of the Waldemar Pawlak's article. (The referencing of the section is an other issue). -- Antoni12345 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also I would be greatful if you could help me with renaming the Second Cabinet of Waldemar Pawlak article to "Cabinet of Waldemar Pawlak", as there exists a disambiguation page I don't know how to deal with. -- Antoni12345 (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted good faith edits by Ale2006 (talk): Bit ordering is defined at the physical layer, not by IP.

Bits can be numbered 0 to 7 either starting from the most significant bit or from the least significant one. The diagram numbers bits, but doesn't explain based on which convention. That way, it requires guesswork to establish, for example, whether the version can be obtained by byte[0] & 0xf rather than byte[0] >> 4.

ale (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]