User talk:Kvng

Thanks for BLARing El libro de recuerdos

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)

@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)

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)

Question from Samoiamo (13:35, 25 March 2024)

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)

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)

@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)

Game engine redirects

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)

@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)

Nomination of Ethernet Exchange for deletion

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)

WHCR-LP

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)

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

Waldemar Pawlak

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)

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)

Bit order

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)

Diplomatic Academy of London

You de-PRODded it. Did anyone actually contest deletion? Or was it because I tried briefly to make sense of it (but failed). As I wrote at the talk page, it is entirely not notable. Not now and never was. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah actually disappointing and time wasting, this was such a clear cut case, and it was six days with no objection. AusLondonder (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I deprodded because you appeared to be asserting some sort of WP:HOAX and quality issues with the article and did not support your WP:ORGCRIT assertion in the presence of 8 sources some of which appear potentially reliable. It is better to use WP:AFD for a hoax because it produces a more durable result (prod results in WP:SOFTDELETE). Quality issues are, of course, not a valid reason to delete. Prod is for uncontroversial deletions but many editors use them as a first, low-effort attempt to delete something that actually deserves discussion. Sorry if that is not the case here but that is the reason I deproded with your not-obviously-supported WP:ORGCRIT assertion. ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you really think your deprodding today was constructive? I've counted at least 14 deprods. For example Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel, a organisation that doesn't exist and has no sources? Or the multiple radio stations that you haven't redirected. Looks to me like an attempt to make a point. AusLondonder (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed 41 prods today and removed 19. See User:Kvng/Deprod/March 2024 for details on my recent WP:PRODPATROL work. Because of the high volume, I didn't have time to do any bold redirects today. I suggested the radio articles can be merged or redirected to the lists of stations by state. Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel can be merged into the farm bill that established it.

I understand your WP:POINTY concern and try to adjust my deprod behavior in the case, for instance, that many of these go to AfD and are quickly deleted. So far this month, only 24 articles I've deprodded have been sent to AfD and only 7 of those have reached a delete consensus. I watch all of the articles I deprod for 30 days and many receive improvements. So yes, I think this is constructive work. How do you defend your deletion proposals? A bad deletion proposal is the opposite of constructive. ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I defend them? Well most articles I eventually take to AfD are deleted or redirected. Several of the PRODs had been endorsed by other editors and clearly with the Diplomatic Academy article another editor was concerned enough by the removal of the tag they came here to your talk. AusLondonder (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your stats don't support your assertion that most your AfDs are deleted. It looks like barely a majority. Clearly a minority if you don't count redirect as a delete. ~Kvng (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you look at articles taken to AfD this year (rather than seven years ago) they are overwhelmingly delete. AusLondonder (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

In 2024 you have 23 deletions. 8 redirects. 8 keep or merge. 2 no consensus. Only 56% were cleanly deleted. I wouldn't characterize this as overwhelmingly or most. ~Kvng (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So in other words, just 6 were kept in their current form...

AfD is an appropriate venue to determine whether an article should be redirected. AusLondonder (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a generous way to look at it but it still means you were wrong at least 14% of the time. It's quite possible I'm wrong at least 14% of the time with my deprods but when I'm wrong, we discuss it. When a prodder is wrong the article just quietly disappears. ~Kvng (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're confident a redirect is the best solution, WP:BLAR is an easier way to propose that. ~Kvng (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - one of my recent prods was also de-prodded by Kvng and is currently in AfD, and while it's a little frustrating to experience the additional delay, I think these de-proddings are valid. De-prodding is for when any editor has any objection, including objections of the form "this may be deletable but I think it deserves a full AfD discussion first". A full AfD will result in a more complete and durable record of deletion consensus. Even if we disagree with the objection, it still deserves consideration and discussion. DefaultFree (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304 Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Gender studies | Health Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman. Tip of the month: If you run into technical problems, you might find help on our Tools and technical support page 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 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Mryoulmamah on Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers (07:02, 31 March 2024)

How do I create a quote? --Mryoulmamah (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mryoulmamah, "Quotation marks are a good place to start" ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

ADPCM

The screenshot provided was DPCM as can be seen there is no point on the same level from the last one. GalaxyDoge72 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@GalaxyDoge72 I don't see a screenshot on Adaptive differential pulse-code modulation ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster 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 21:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Isaac Anyanwu (09:32, 2 April 2024)

Hello King, How do I create an article about me on Wikipedia? --Isaac Anyanwu (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Isaac Anyanwu, generally not a good idea. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. ~Kvng (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from AndrewJPatrick (17:13, 2 April 2024)

Hi Kvng - Is there a way to ensure that my draft page for Canadian Climate Institute is still in the queue for review? There's a bit of a long backstory with this one, but I submitted it for review about six weeks ago. I see now that the disclaimer at the top says it could take up to two months to review, so perhaps it's on the docket but hasn't had the chance to have a review yet. For background this page was soft deleted recently. The original editor who submitted for deletion put it back as draft so that it could undergo review for publication. Since submission for deletion it's been updated to remove promotional language, update conflict of interest, and add multiple sources etc. The draft page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Canadian_Climate_Institute any help or guidance here is much appreciated. --AndrewJPatrick (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@AndrewJPatrick, yes it is still in the queue. Reviews are not necessarily done in the order they are received and reviewers may pass this one over because there are 47 sources to review - a heavy lift. If I were reviewing this it would help if you could identify your WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the organization. ~Kvng (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that - will see what I can do. AndrewJPatrick (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Engschrift article - merge

Hi there,

I noticed that you objected my deletion request for the Engschrift article some days ago, and suggested instead it be merged. Once this is done, which article do you suggest it be redirected to? Engschrift refers to condensed variants of DIN 1451, Austria and Tern.

Thanks. EthanL13 | talk 19:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@EthanL13, to start I'd need to understand the relationship between Engschrift and Tern (typeface). None of this is my area of expertise so I'm not sure how much of my advice you want to be taking. For real help help maybe post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography. ~Kvng (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kvng, I believe it's related to Tern due to the condensed (engschrift) being mentioned in Austrian traffic sign legislation. But I am rather asking what to do in regards to redirecting to the three articles it refers to. EthanL13 | talk 21:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@EthanL13, I guess I didn't understand the question. I guess I still don't understand the question. What do you think of my suggestion of asking typography experts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography? ~Kvng (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, but I could.be wrong, it's not possible to create redirects to more than one article. But I'll ask there so. Thanks. EthanL13 | talk 10:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right, only one redirect target is allowed. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Rainbow Saver Anglia Credit Union

You have removed the PROD and redirected this article to list of credit unions in the United States, however the credit union is not American. AusLondonder (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I have backed it out. I'm afraid you'll need to use AfD now since prod cannot be restored once removed. ~Kvng (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

TCP

Greetings. While 'no deadlines' is an interesting essay, it is just that, and it most definitely does not supercede the strict requirements for verifiability. Unsourced material that has not been challenged can be left as it is, if no editor is bothered by a lack of citations. However, once challenged, the requirements are clear: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."

The material was challenged a year and a half ago. That is more than adequate time for an interested editor to cite the material. As you have chosen to restore the challenged material, may I assume you are going to add adequate citations? Your user page suggests that you are a subject-matter expert here. I have considerable experience in networking and internetworking, but don't consider myself expert. If not, yes, I would be willing to take a go at it, but generally speaking the responsibility lies with the editor who adds unsourced material, not the editor who removes it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I swear that I go to extraordinary efforts to be a dimbulb. I see now that you did add a cite, and since the cite in its entirety is specific to the section, that should be more than adequate. Apologies for my error. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Anastrophe, I've been there; I understand how you can get a notification of revert and then not notice there were further edits. I can try to remember do this as a single edit in the future.

I did read your struck comments. I don't appreciate the pattern of editors removing material because it is tagged and they don't understand it or don't know where to find sources. Remove it if you think it's wrong or you believe no sources exist. Transmission Control Protocol is getting nearly 2000 views per day and has existed since 2001. In this context, errors are ejected pretty reliably. ~Kvng (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair arguments all. I fall into a category of editors who don't fall into a category of editors. Sometimes I'm a 'deletionist', and sometimes I do the deletion as I did here - in hopes of gently prodding the existing interested editors into confronting the lack of attention to challenged material. Then there's plenty of times I'll spend half my day tracking down and verifying sources, and making the challenged material properly cited myself. I never maliciously remove info from articles; but I also feel that the strong ethos we have here that challenged material may be removed, is a necessary one; however, it's exceedingly rare that I delete material that has been recently challenged, 'recent' always being a judgement call. Regrettably, too often I run across material that's been challenged for a decade or more. Those are also judgement calls - was the cite-needed tag added just to be a butthead, or is the material patently clear, typically because existing wikilinks provide the answer at the destination, or any of countless other reasons.

Case-by-case is the order of the day. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Expansion At First Use (EAFU) in Cable Modem article

Thank you for removing the duplicate QoS that I added to the Cable Modem article. I should have checked the rest of the article.

However, I was wondering why you removed the expansion of CDLP and DOCSIS. Now, nowhere in the article does it explain that CDLP means "Cable Data Link Protocol" and "DOCSIS" means "Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification"

My goal is to expand each acronym on first use "term (acronym)" and if the term or acronym has it's own article, then I'll link to it, staying aware of DUPLINK.

Currently, the linking on this page is varied:

PSTN (telephone network) - Acronym and term linked together - (this is the example I used)

Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) - term and acronym as separate links

Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) - only the term linked

UDP only the acronym linked, and it is not expanded to "User Datagram Protocol" anywhere in the article.

I prefer linking both the term and the acronym, as in [[ the article | term (acronym) ]] , so that both link to the informative article, which could have been named for the term, or the acronym.

So, I'd like to clean up and expand the article, but wanted to first get your input on which form to use, and also a heads up that on what I'm planning so we can agree and not get into a revert fest on this. Although, I sometimes don't know why I care for consistency, since there is nothing to prevent someone from diving in and totally changing it all next week. Let me know what you think when you get a chance.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)